Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CROYDON CORPORATION BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tomorrow.

GLOUCESTER AND SHARPNESS CANAL (WATER) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Engineering Industry

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the fact that industrial unrest is increasing in the engineering industry, if he will appoint an

independent committee of inquiry to make a thorough examination of the wages, conditions, differentials received, and technical knowledge required of the skilled men engaged in the engineering industry, indicating in their report the relative reward received compared to others engaged in services and non-productive and non-exporting industries.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Last April the Minister sent me some excellent statistical information which I very much appreciated. Will he now have it published in the OFFICIAL REPORT so that all can see the policy of devaluation of skill which is being carried out by the engineering employers, and will he reconsider the postwar policy, which all Ministers of Labour have pursued, of holding the rein rather than adopting the policy carried out by Ernest Bevin of having investigation prior to disputes?

Mr. Heath: The information which I was able to send the hon. Gentleman consisted of a very large amount of material. However, I have noticed that considerable interest has been expressed in it since I sent it to him, and I will therefore see whether it is possible, despite its length, for it to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I recognise the importance of the point which he mentions, but, as he knows only too well, there is long-established


machinery for dealing with these negotiations, and I think it must be left to those who take part to deal with these matters.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: While not agreeing that an independent committee is necessary, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that there are a number of people who are not quite happy about the relations in the engineer-

The Tables below show the level of average minimum or standard time rates for the designated occupations in July, 1914, at the end of December, 1920 and 1930 and at 21st March, 1960. The relative index numbers based on July, 1914 = 100 have been calculated and are also included. In addition where possible at each date the rate for the higher paid occupation in each industry has been expressed as a percentage of the rate for the lower paid occupation in the same industry. Owing to the complicated wages structure in the coalmining industry at the earlier dates similar information cannot be given.

ing industry at the present time? Would it not be a good idea for the House to have a debate on industrial matters in, perhaps, the not too far distant future?

Mr. Heath: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and hon. Members.

Following is the statement:

Railway service


Date
Weekly Rates in monetary terms (see note (1))
Weekly Rates expressed as percentage of level at July, 1914 = 100
Engine drivers' rate expressed as percentage of passenger porters' rate


Engine drivers (according to year in grade) (see note (2))
Passenger porters (grade 2) in industrial areas excluding London
Engine drivers (according to year in grade)
Passenger porters (grade 2) in industrial areas excluding London





s.

d.

s.
d.





July, 1914
…

40

6

19
2
100
100
211




s.
d.

s.
d.







31st December, 1920
…
88
0
to
106
0
67
0
217 to 262
350
131 to 158


31st December, 1930
…
72
0
to
90
0
42
0
178 to 222
219
171 to 214


4th April, 1960
…
214
0
to
240
6
Commencing
528 to 594
Commencing
135 to 151









159
0

830
over









After 2 years

After 2 years
Commencing









164
0

856
rate













130 to 147













over rate after 2 years


Notes—(1)The rates shown for 1914 are the estimated approximate averages of the rates actually paid. For later dates they are the agreed standard rates.


(2)Extra payment is also made when performing over a certain mileage per day.

Factories (Inspection)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour how many registered factories are now given priority for inspection by the Factory Inspectorate; how many are not given priority; and what percentage of factories, in each category, were actually visited by factory inspectors during 1959.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): In 1959, 67,000 factories were given priority in the inspection plans of the district inspectors, and 154,000 were not. 71 per cent. of the factories given this priority were visited during the year, and 34 per cent. of the rest.

Mr. Prentice: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not at all satisfactory that even those factories which are given priority are not all visited during the course of the year? Is he aware that in 1926 this country supported an I.L.O. Convention which laid down as an objective that there should

be annual visits to all factories, and that we ratified the Convention but have not got anywhere near attaining that objective? Should we not now reiterate it and take positive steps to increase the strength of the Factory Inspectorate in order to reach the objective of an annual visit to each factory?

Mr. Thomas: I am not absolutely sure about the Convention in 1926. There was a recommendation in 1923 to the effect mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. However, in 1947 there was a Convention, which was agreed by this country, to the effect that inspections should be as often and as thorough as was necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. I suggest to the hon. Member that statistics of the number of visits, taken in isolation, are not a satisfactory yardstick of the measure of effectiveness of the Inspectorate's work and that the figures which I have given him show that more than half the factories were visited by the Inspectorate last year.

Mr. Prentice: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my supplementary question and say whether he considers it satisfactory that even those factories which were classified as priority factories were not all visited during the year?

Mr. Thomas: The priority system was introduced on an experimental basis in 1955. Certain factories which formerly had not been visited for some time were put on a priority basis. However, the percentage of 71 is somewhere near the percentage which has been reached every year since then.

Dr. Stross: Is it not true that the complexity of industrial processes is becoming greater each year, that recent legislation has placed increasing burdens upon the Factory Inspectorate, and that even if we doubled the strength of the Inspectorate we should not have too many inspectors for what now needs to be done?

Mr. Thomas: There has been quite an encouraging increase in the Inspectorate of late. At the moment we are about thirty below the authorised strength, but ten vacancies are due to be filled shortly by newly appointed officers who have not yet taken up their duties.

Aliens (Labour Permits)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour (1) why he has granted a labour permit to a United States citizen to play the part of an Arabian prince in a British television play, in spite of the objection of the professional trade union concerned and unemployment amongst British actors;
(2) to what extent he has taken into account the advice of the trade unions concerned and availability of British citizens for employment in deciding whether or not to grant labour permits to aliens.

Mr. Heath: A permit is issued only if no suitable British worker is available, and it is the practice to consult the trade union concerned. In the case quoted by the hon. Member, I was satisfied that the employer had made adequate but unsuccessful efforts to find a suitable British actor. I am always grateful for any advice by the trade union con-

cerned, and I took full account of the views expressed before I reached a decision to issue this permit.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not a fact that Equity, the union involved in this, has always been reasonable in the past when consulted about the granting of labour permits? Is it not also a fact that in this case Associated Rediffusion unfortunately adopted blackmailing tactics by threatening to cancel this play unless this permit, involving one out of 300 actors, was granted, whereas the professional association took the view that there were British actors available to do the job? Has not the attitude of the employer been highly objectionable?

Mr. Heath: It is true that in the great majority of cases my Department is able to reach an amicable conclusion with those concerned, both employer and the union. I am sorry that in this case it was not possible to do that and therefore the decision finally rested with me as Minister. I came to the conclusion that this permit should be granted. I was not in any way influenced by any attitude taken by the employer. We were concerned to consider this purely on its merits.

Remploy Factory, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the age limits and other conditions under which people work in the Remploy Factory, Aberdeen, operate harshly on the type of persons Remploy was founded to assist; and if he will relax and improve those limits and conditions and specify the steps he intends to take to that end.

Mr. P. Thomas: There are no fixed age limits, and I am not aware of any other conditions operating harshly on employees of Remploy; but if the hon. and learned Member will give me particulars, I shall be glad to look into any particular case he may have in mind.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the persons for whom the Remploy factories were instituted should be given the utmost consideration? Will he see that they are given the utmost consideration because of their disability to do ordinary work?

Mr. Thomas: I certainly agree with the view expressed by the hon. and


learned Gentleman. I have made inquiries into the Aberdeen Remploy Factory, and it seems to me that the manager there is particularly sympathetic towards the disabled. He has asked me to say that he would welcome a visit from the hon. and learned Gentleman to this factory. The hon. and learned Gentleman would find that the disabled are very well looked after there.

Mr. Hughes: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary as to the conditions in which the manager works. He is an extremely good manager, and my Question is not intended as an imputation on him in any way.

National Service (Pottery Engravers)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the urgent need to increase the exports of pottery and other North Staffordshire manufactured products, if he will make a statement on this matter, regarding which he has received correspondence from the hon. Member for Stoke, South.

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Labour if he will grant a total exemption for military service for engravers engaged in the pottery industry.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the serious shortage of engravers in the pottery industry, and that only 60 engravers are available for the whole of the industry; and whether he will now exempt engravers from military service.

Mr. Heath: I recognise that employers are always reluctant to have useful young workers called up, but I cannot automatically exempt such men from their obligations. I am, however, looking into the difficulties in the particular cases raised by the hon. Members and I will write to them in a few days' time.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Whilst I appreciate the sympathetic approach to this question by the Minister, will he undertake to have personal consultations with the President of the Board of Trade about the pottery industry, which could greatly increase its exports if problems of this kind were solved?

Mr. Heath: We are always in close consultation with the Board of Trade in these matters. Only three engravers in the pottery industry are involved in the

whole of the year. I will look at this again carefully.

Mrs. Slater: It is important that this should be done as quickly as possible. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this matter with some urgency, because these people are so vital to the industry?

Mr. Heath: Yes, it is being treated with urgency.

Dr. Stross: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in looking at this problem, that although only three young men are concerned, the value of each to the industry is£70,000 a year? The right hon. Gentleman may imagine what a blow it is if they cannot be replaced when he takes them away.

Mr. Heath: I recognise the value of each one of them.

Apprenticeships and Training Facilities

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to ensure the provision of apprenticeships and other facilities for training for the emerging young population of the new towns.

Mr. P. Thomas: This matter is receiving attention from the Industrial Training Council and is constantly reviewed by the Government, together with other problems of the new towns. In the new towns, the bulge of school leavers will come later than for the country generally, and should create no serious difficulty before 1964.

Mr. Albu: It is quite true that the bulge may come later, but it is likely to be much larger in the new towns because of their low age composition. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present rate of activity of the Industrial Training Council does not give much confidence that it will be able to deal with this problem? Does not he agree that the position is now made more difficult by the ending of Blue Streak and similar defence expenditure? This is a matter to which he should give particular attention.

Mr. Thomas: Not only the Industrial Training Council but the new towns corporations and my Department are fully aware of the difficulties and are giving close and particular attention to them.

Mr. Robens: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress being made as a whole in training apprentices?

Mr. Thomas: One can never be wholly satisfied with progress, but one is satisfied that some extra progress is being made.

Mr. Robens: Is not the hon. Gentleman alarmed at the fact that we are not providing enough training for apprentices in this country at the present time?

Mr. Thomas: I would not go so far as to say "alarmed", but I would welcome extra intake into apprenticeships and exhort everyone concerned to do all they can in this matter.

Bank Employees (Union Representation)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of an impending dispute resulting from the dissolution by the Scottish banks of the negotiating machinery of the bank employees; and if he will use his good offices to avert the dispute.

Mr. Heath: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the recent dissolution of the Scottish Bank Employers' Federation, which constituted the employers' side of the Joint Conciliation Council of the Scottish banking industry. This has affected negotiating arrangements, but I am not aware of any specific dispute.

Mr. Manuel: As the negotiating machinery has been virtually swept away, will the right hon. Gentleman consider meeting representatives of the Scottish banks in order to try to restore their machinery and so avoid a possible disruption of trade and commerce? Feelings are beginning to run very high, as some of us are aware, which is my reason for putting down this Question, because I think the right hon. Gentleman should help.

Mr. Heath: My officials have been in contact with the parties in this machinery for some time, but at the moment I cannot see any way in which I can be of help in general. If a particular dispute were to arise, then that would be a different situation.

Mr. Rankin: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that this matter was

raised on two different occasions in the last Parliament, and that a great deal of trouble has been caused by the bankers in Scotland because of the fact that they claim to have negotiating machinery, which has been used as an excuse for not recognising the National Union of Bank Employees? Now that they have swept away the negotiating machinery, are they going to recognise the union?

Mr. Heath: That is a matter for individual banks, and I cannot answer for them.

Mr. Robens: I have many times asked the Minister whether he will take the initiative in talking to the chairmen of the banks about recognition of the union. This is an impossible situation, for the banks remain as the only employers of labour who refuse to recognise properly constituted trade unions.

Mr. Heath: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it does not lie in my hands to compel employers to recognise particular forces with which they should negotiate. In this case the union was a party to the employees' side of the machinery, [Interruption.]—for almost a year, at any rate—and it is up to the bank employers to decide what machinery they have on their side.

Mr. Robens: I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman is able to compel the bank chairmen to deal with the matter, but is he not in a position to make some very helpful suggestions which would influence them considerably?

Mr. Heath: As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), my officials have been following this matter closely for the last few months. I am fully acquainted with the case, but I do not see any way in which I can usefully intervene at the moment.

Foreign and Colonial Labour

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Labour what instructions he has given to his local offices, and particularly to his office in Swindon, regarding employment with firms whose managements do not accept foreign and colonial labour; and what reports he has received on this subject.

Mr. Heath: My local offices have instructions to try to persuade any employer who stipulates that he will not employ Commonwealth or foreign workers to consider them on their merits. But, if he refuses, my Department has a duty to assist him to obtain workers who satisfy his requirements. I am informed that the unemployment problem is not serious at Swindon. At the latest count only six men and one woman from Commonwealth countries were registered as unemployed, and during the last three months about 20 men and six women have been placed in employment.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Minister will know that, on the whole, Swindon has a rather good record in this respect, but that the situation with two firms is rather less satisfactory. Will he use whatever influence he has, either publicly or privately, to see that those firms conform with what is now the normal practice in this country?

Mr. Heath: As I understand it, there is no firm in Swindon which puts a ban on Commonwealth or foreign workers. It is true that there are difficulties in two firms, as the hon. Member knows, but, of course, those difficulties concern both sides engaged in the firms and not only the employers.

School Leavers

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Labour how long it took the 972 boys and girls who left school in the summer and Christmas of 1959 and Easter 1960 in the south-west divisional area of County Durham to find work; and what are the prospects for the 18 who have not yet found employment.

Mr. P. Thomas: Over 80 per cent. found work within one month, and some 92 per cent. within two months. Of the 18 without work on 11th May, 12 left school at Easter; two have now been placed and the remaining four live in remote areas where opportunities are limited.

Mr. Slater: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. In view of the exultation of hon. Gentlemen opposite when I asked a similar Question last week, will he not agree that everything should be done to provide employment for young people leaving school? Parents in my constituency and throughout

south-west Durham are watching the position very carefully. Is he not aware that last week the Northern Echo—and I quote—said—

Mr. Speaker: Quoting from newspapers to any extent during Questions is out of order.

Mr. Slater: I have been in the House for ten years and this will not be the first time that I have known hon. Members having the privilege of drawing attention to matters arising in the Press and relevant to their Questions. I cannot understand how I am now ruled out of order.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard it, and so have I. But I am striving slowly but progressively to conform to the rules about Questions. I am sure that the hon. Member can complete his supplementary question without quoting the newspaper.

Mr. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as recently as last week attention was drawn to six boys who had gone after one job in south-west Durham? Is he not aware that that means that young people are going from place to place to find employment and that the position is becoming very serious?

Mr. P. Thomas: No, I am afraid that I was not aware of that, but I agree that everything must be done to try to get work for young people as soon as possible after they leave school. When I answered the hon. Gentleman's last Question, I said that out of 990 boys and girls who had left school in that area during the Summer and Christmas of 1959, and Easter, 1960, only 18 had not yet found work. Hon. Members on this side of the House appeared to be quite pleased about that, and I hope that the hon. Member is, too.

Mr. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am not chasing this matter out of mere curiosity, but because I appreciate the seriousness of the position and recognise that young people are human beings and an integral part of our society, and should be given every possible help?

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Labour what are the prospects of employment in the south-west division of Durham County for school leavers in 1962, when the school leavers bulge comes on to the labour market.

Mr. P. Thomas: The Government's object is to maintain a high and stable level of employment, but I cannot make specific forecasts as far ahead as 1962.

Mr. Slater: Will not the position be very serious when the bulge of school leavers takes place in 1962? If the hon. Gentleman is not in a position to give any assistance in finding employment for these young people, should not the matter be brought to the attention of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Thomas: I fully appreciate the problem which the bulge will create in 1962, but I do not think the hon. Member would wish me to make forecasts about prospects in 1962. Present indications are that the prospects for girls are reasonably good, while those for boys are less favourable, but the great majority should be in work within a short time of leaving school.

Employment

Mr. Millan: asked the Minister of Labour what percentages of the total population of England, Wales and Scotland were gainfully employed in 1957, and at the latest convenient date, respectively.

Mr. Heath: The figures in respect of all gainfully employed persons are available only for Great Britain as a whole. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to give the information for which the hon. Gentleman asks.

Mr. Millan: If the information were available, would it not show that the normal published figures of employment actually understate the position in Scotland, since in an area of high unemployment, like Scotland, many people who might otherwise be eligible for work do not register as unemployed in view of their very poor prospects?

Mr. Heath: I do not think that I agree with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Lawson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this information is not now available when it was available two years ago?

Mr. Heath: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that he is mistaken and that this information has never been available. That is because of the form in which the

Question is put. It refers to "gainfully employed" and asks for a breakdown for England, Wales and Scotland. It would have to include employers and self-employed, and we do not have the breakdown for those figures.

Insured Workers

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the percentage increase in the number of insured workers in each of his Department's industrial regions of Great Britain from 1950 to 1959 inclusive.

Mr. Heath: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Ross: Without prematurely disclosing any State secrets, can the right hon. Gentleman say which of the industrial regions is worst?

Mr. Heath: The percentage increases for Wales and Scotland were the two lowest, with the figure for the North-Western area slightly higher.

Mr. Ross: Can the right hon. Gentleman impart that information to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade so that the Board of Trade can take steps to provide employment in Scotland?

Following is the reply:


CHANGES IN THE ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES IN EACH OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONS IN ENGLAND AND IN SCOTLAND AND WALES BETWEEN MID-1950 AND MID-1959


Region
Percentage Increase mid-1950 to mid-1959


London and South Eastern
…
+8·3


Eastern and Southern
…
+15·5


South Western
…
+9·0


Midland
…
+8·7


North Midland
…
+6·7


East and West Ridings
…
+2·1


North Western
…
+1·8


Northern
…
+4·5


Scotland
…
+1·3


Wales
…
+1·3

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour what was the percentage increase in the number of insured workers in each of his Department's administrative regions of Great Britain from mid-1955 to mid-1959.

Mr. Heath: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lawson: Is there not a very wide difference in the rate of increase among the different parts of Great Britain in this respect? Is not the rate of increase so serious as to suggest that Scotland, for example, and probably Wales and the north-east of England, are falling considerably behind in industrial development compared with other parts of the country?

Mr. Heath: If the hon. Gentleman will study the figures, he will get the picture very clearly.

Following is the reply:


CHANGES IN THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN EACH OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONS IN ENGLAND AND IN SCOTLAND AND WALES BETWEEN MID-1955 AND MID-1959


Region
Percentage Increase and Decrease mid-1955 to mid-1959


London &amp; South Eastern
…
+2·8


Eastern and Southern
…
+6·2


South Western
…
+3·8


Midland
…
+0·6


North Midland
…
+2·5


East &amp; West Ridings
…
+0·9


North Western
…
-0·7


Northern
…
+3·0


Scotland
…
-0·4


Wales
…
+0·5

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the Minister of Labour what has been the percentage increase in the number of insured persons in Dagenham over the period from 1945 until the latest available date.

Mr. Heath: I regret that precise figures are not available.

Mr. Fraser: Will the Minister say why precise figures are not available, and will he in any case check to see whether the increase in the number of persons employed in this area has not greatly exceeded the numbers expected with the I.D.C.s granted since 1945, particularly to the Ford Motor Company? If he finds that what I have suggested is correct, will he use his influence with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade not to grant another I.D.C. for another£10 million, particularly to Ford's in this area?

Mr. Heath: There are several reasons why precise figures are not available. One reason is that the basis of comparison between the figures has been changed since 1945. In addition, Dagenham is part of a much larger area, and therefore

figures for it alone are not available. We also do not know the number of people who work in Dagenham but who are not insured there, and similarly those who are insured there but do not work there. So far as the last part of the question is concerned, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, answered that during Questions recently.

Railwaymen, Caithness and Sutherland

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Minister of Labour what information he has received from the British Transport Commission regarding the number of Highland railwaymen and women who will lose their jobs of 13th June; and what alternative work he expects to find for them in Caithness and Sutherland where the unemployment rate is always the highest on the mainland of Great Britain.

Mr. Heath: I am informed that 79 posts will be affected and that all those concerned will be offered other work by British Railways.

International Labour Convention (Discrimination)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the recent discussion on the National Joint Advisory Council concerning the Government's decision not to ratify International Labour Convention No. 111 which relates to discrimination in employment; and whether the Government will now reconsider this decision in the light of recent events in South Africa and the importance of making it clear throughout the world that discrimination on the grounds of race or colour is rejected by this country.

Mr. Heath: The Government's reasons for not ratifying this Convention, as set out in the White Paper Cmnd. 783 published on 26th June, 1959, still apply. I am glad to have this opportunity of re-affirming that the Government are opposed to discrimination on grounds of race or colour. The recent discussion on the National Joint Advisory Council made it clear that both sides of industry endorse this view.

Mr. Prentice: Would not the Minister agree that it would make the view much


more clear and remove any possibility of our attitude being misunderstood or misinterpreted if this country were to ratify the Convention which, after all, was concerned mainly with discrimination on grounds of race or colour? Are not the Government's reasons as set out in the White Paper rather finicky reasons for not making a clear declaration by ratifying the Convention at this point?

Mr. Heath: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. We had a very long and fruitful discussion with the National Joint Advisory Council about it. If he looks again at the Convention, he will find that it was not only concerned with race and colour but also with sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin, and it also required legislation to implement this. We adhere to our view that the Government do not intervene by legislation in questions of terms and conditions of employment but that it is a matter for employers and employees.

Mr. Prentice: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we are not concerned here with terms and conditions of employment in the detailed sense? We are concerned with the principle that there should not be discrimination in employment on grounds of race or colour and the other matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Surely the Government could reaffirm that principle most clearly by ratifying the Convention?

Mr. Heath: I disagree, because if the hon. Gentleman sees the implications of equality for the sexes he will realise the difficulty. I have reaffirmed the principle of non-discrimination extremely clearly in my Answer. The National Joint Advisory Council wanted me to make it plain at the earliest opportunity.

Isle of Sheppey

Mr. P. Wells: asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of registered unemployed on the Isle of Sheppey at the latest convenient date; and what was the corresponding number a year ago.

Mr. Heath: Seven hundred and two at 11th April compared with 375 at 13th April, 1959.

Mr. Wells: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most serious

aspects of this problem is the lack of opportunity for school leavers? That problem is already serious, and might became much more severe as time goes on. What special measures does he propose to deal with this and the general problem that arises from the deliberate policy of the Government in closing Sheerness dockyard?

Mr. Heath: The closure of the dockyard was the result of general defence policy, but the area is a development district and I am glad to say that there are signs of firms coming into the dockyard which was sold to Building Development Limited. One firm has already started production. Another is due to start at the end of the month, and another has already started to prepare for its operations. Four I.D.C.s have been granted and three are under consideration. I hope that industry will begin to develop in the area.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Food Standards Committee

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by wham consumer interests will be represented on his new Food Standards Committee; and how these representatives will be selected.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): My right hon. Friend hopes soon to announce the names of the members who will serve on the reconstituted Food Standards Committee. The members to represent the interests of consumers will be chosen on the basis of their personal qualifications and experience.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister say when these names will be announced?

Mr. Godber: I cannot give the precise date, but I hope that it will be very soon.

Mr. Lipton: Will this reconstitution improve the composition of the Food Standards Committee, which has been engaged in some discussions, such as on the quality of flour and bread, for four years without producing any result?

Mr. Godber: I agree that some reports take some time, but I would not say


that that was a reflection on the merits of the members of the Committee. Some of these matters are very involved indeed.

Mrs. Slater: Will the hon. Gentleman consider appointing a housewife to serve on this sort of body, in view of the fact that housewives are the people who come most closely into contact with food standards?

Mr. Godber: As I say, the names will be announced fairly soon. I cannot comment further now, but I have taken note of the hon. Lady's point.

Egg Marketing Board

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. HOLT: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will obtain an assurance from the Egg Marketing Board that the directors of any egg packing station established by the Board will not make use of privileged information relating to the Board's prices obtained by them as members of the Egg Marketing Board.

Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order. Referring to Question No. 27, which the hon. Member is not here to ask, does it, in your opinion, Mr. Speaker, seem right that reputations of directors of semi-Government boards should be impugned—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. Would the hon. Member be good enough to continue.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I was asking for your guidance on Question No. 27, which the hon. Member is not here to ask. It seems wrong that members of a board constituted indirectly by the Government should have their reputations impugned by a Question in the House.

Mr. Speaker: I follow the submission. The hon. Member would be right if it could be said that the Question reflected on some individual, but I do not think that that principle applies to a board.

Home Production

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) in view of the steady increase in the percentage of food consumed in

the United Kingdom which is produced at home, what is his policy regarding the percentage that should be home-produced in the next five years;
(2) whether he will publish the amounts, which it is his policy should be produced at home during each of the next five years, of all items included in the Annual Price Review.

Mr. Godber: The Government do not set production targets for individual commodities, but they do draw the attention of farmers to the problems of the market in commodities covered by the guarantees, in the White Paper following each Annual Review. Farmers have the benefit of those guarantees but have to keep in mind the need to reduce costs and meet market requirements. Provided they do so, there is ample scope for increased production.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that farmers are having some difficulty in following the implications of Government policy and that what they want is a clear indiction as to what they will be expected to produce in the years ahead? That is one of the reasons why there is a feeling of uncertainty in the farming community.

Mr. Godber: I have heard this criticism levelled, but I do not think it is justified. I do not think it is realistic in present-day conditions to think in terms of food targets. It depends very much on the condition of the market, and if one sets a food target it does not relate to the individual farmer: it relates to the farming community as a whole. So it is of no real value to the farmer.

Mr. Peart: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this is a feeling which is widespread throughout the agricultural community, and has even been expressed by hon. Members from the party opposite? Will the Government give a lead to increase gross production? After all, the Government in their policy have stated that they wish to keep it as it is. The farmers want a lead, but the Government are not giving it.

Mr. Godber: The Government have given an effective lead in this matter. If the hon. Gentleman refers to paragraph 14 of the White Paper, he will see that it sets out precisely the Government's views in regard to production policy, and


they were also adequately and very fully explained to the House by my right hon. Friend only last week.

Mr. Peart: Why is it that branches of the National Farmers' Union throughout the country have condemned the policy and even asked for the Minister to resign?

Mr. Godber: The National Farmers' Union is free to state its views. Having been connected with farming all my life, I am aware that whatever Government is in power the Farmers' Union does not always see eye to eye with the Government.

Sir G. Nicholson: I accept all that my hon. Friend said, but will not he bring himself to face the fact that anxiety and disquiet prevail in the farming community? The agricultural community as a whole is not fully satisfied that the rôle it is intended to play in the future is yet decided. Cannot he bring more certainty into the picture?

Mr. Godber: I really do not think there is anything that I can add to the detailed speech my right hon. Friend made in this House only last week dealing with this very point, when he made it quite clear that we were not seeking to restrict production. All we were saying was that farmers should produce in the most efficient and economic way possible. If they did that they would have nothing to fear.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will my hon. Friend look at this again? The farming community does not want a precise guide for each individual commodity but a general indication as to whether over the years it is expected to increase the percentage of home produce or keep it steady, or reduce it. The community wants a guide.

Mr. Godber: Again, all I can say is that my right hon. Friend stated this very point very clearly last week. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."1 Yes, he did. I suggest that hon. Members re-read my right hon. Friend's speech, in which he said that there was room for increased production provided that the needs of the market were met and we had a proper regard for the cost of production. If we were to seek to do anything other than that, we should merely be letting down

the farmers in the long run, because it would not be in their interests to go on increasing ad lib without any regard to the market.

Annual Price Reviews

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider, after future Annual Price Reviews and Determinations of Guarantees, giving instructions that the resultant figures will be analysed and referred to under the heading, A, Farm Improvement Subsidy, and the balance under the heading, B, Consumers' Food Subsidy.

Mr. Godber: I regret that this suggestion is not practicable. Apart from the subsidy on welfare foods, which is not taken into account at Annual Reviews, there is no identifiable consumers' food subsidy. On the other hand, it is true that the Government's support for agriculture yields very real indirect advantages for consumers, who are able to buy at world prices. In this way the cost of living is kept down.

Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that my purpose in asking this Question was to call attention to the fact that many people in this country hold the view that the whole of the money in any one Price Review goes straight into the farmers' pockets? As he knows, that is not the case. In the last Price Review, out of a total of£259 million, the farmers benefited directly by less than half that sum. The remainder went solely towards keeping down the cost of food prices.

Mr. Godber: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend is seeking to make, but it is very difficult to set any precise figures. What is clear is that, generally speaking, consumers gain a very real benefit from the support we give the farming community.

Mr. J. Hynd: Is not the whole purpose of subsidies to keep out cheaper foreign food?

Mr. Godber: Certainly not. Food prices in this country are relatively the same as world prices. We say that the market should be free, but that farmers should be safeguarded against any unreasonable effects on them.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Retirement Pensioners (Assistance)

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state the total number of allowances, and the average weekly amount of such allowances, made by the National Assistance Board to retirement pensioners with and without adult dependants, respectively.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): On the basis of information obtained from a sample inquiry made towards the end of last year, the National Assistance Board estimates that the 1,012,000 retirement pensioners receiving weekly assistance grants on 29th March, 1960, included about 181,000 pensioners with wives and about 700 with other adult dependants. The average amounts of the grants at the time of the inquiry were 28s. for married pensioners and 20s. 11d. for others.

Mr. Ross: These figures give us an indication not only of the good work being done by the National Assistance Board but also its scale. Does the Minister agree that these figures underline the complete inadequacy of the basic pension?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We discussed that matter at some length as recently as Friday. The House then paid considerable attention to the view that the major factor in the increase in these figures was the deliberate action of the Government, last September, to raise both the National Assistance scales and the disregards, so as to give a share of our rising prosperity to the poorest of our fellow citizens.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Power Stations (Fuelling)

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Power whether the discussions between the Central Electricity Generating Board and the oil companies on the modification of contracts for oil supplies have yet been completed; and if he is in a position to make a statement.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): Brunswick Wharf and Little-brook "B" power stations were to have

been converted to oil burning this year. It has been agreed that they will go on burning coal for at least two more years. The possibility of extending the period of this agreement will be discussed before it ends.

Mr. Lee: We are grateful for the information which the right hon. Member has given us, but are we to take it that this is the result of a discussion of short-term contracts, and that there are many longer-term contracts which involve oil and compensation therefor? Can he say whether we can look forward to the announcement of an agreement upon them?

Mr. Wood: I would not like to go any further than what I have said. I am not wholly pessimistic, and it may be possible to go further than I have gone at the moment, but that is the present position, and it is an achievement with which I am extremely pleased.

Mr. Jeger: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement made at the recent opening of the Ferrybridge power station in Yorkshire that coal-burning generating stations are far cheaper than oil-burning stations and that the Yorkshire stations are the cheapest in the country?

Mr. Wood: I am told that in the case to which I have drawn attention the cost of burning oil under contract and the cost of burning coal are similar.

Steel Imports

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Power what was the total of steel imports during March, 1960; how this figure compares with March, 1959; and what the cost per annum would be if this level of imports were maintained.

Mr. Wood: Eighty thousand tons of steel were imported in March, 1960. Its value was£5·7 million, compared with 32,000 tons valued at£1·9 million in March, 1959. If this rate were maintained throughout the year the cost would be£68½ million.

Mr. Lee: Are we not getting into a somewhat serious situation in connection with our imports of sheet? Can he confirm that the targets laid down for the expansion of sheet production in Britain, especially 1958, were never met


and, because of that, we are running into a serious position in the matter of imports which, if it continues, may have a deleterious effect on our balance of payments?

Mr. Wood: Home production of these steels is expected to reach about 2·8 million tons this year, compared with 2·5 million tons last year, which is a fairly substantial increase of 11 per cent. This has been the purpose of our new strip steel construction, and the exports of steel are still continuing at a high rate, because it is of value to maintain our export markets at the same time that marginal shortages make it necessary for us to import steel on this scale.

Mr. Lee: Can the Minister say whether there has been a failure to expand sufficiently to meet that which we should have anticipated as being the correct demand by this time? Does not the nub of the matter lie in the fact that whenever production in the car industry, or a similar industry, expands, it must be taken care of by increased imports and not by our own production?

Mr. Wood: I cannot accept that there has been a failure to expand, because the figure of 24 million tons this year is one-fifth above the level last year, and more than one-tenth above the previous record of 1957. It is common experience that at a time of buoyant demand marginal shortages have always to be made up by imports—which this year are less than they were in 1956.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

East Midland Doubles

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Power whether he is aware of the demand for East Midland doubles abroad; and what action is being taken to export the 300,000 tons of this type of coal at present held in stock.

Mr. Wood: Yes, Sir. The National Coal Board and the exporters have increased exports to meet this demand, but it has not yet been possible to clear the stocks to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the export department of the National Coal Board is doing all it

should, in view of the fact that only recently the right hon. Gentleman told me that 300,000 tons of this coal was lying idle, whereas a few weeks before he told me that there was an unsatisfied demand for this coal which could not be satisfied because of the scarcity of coal of this type?

Mr. Wood: I understand that the type the hon. Member has in mind is virtually not included in the stock at present held in the East Midlands. The National Coal Board has exported almost twice as much in the first quarter of this year as it did in the first quarter last year. Therefore, the hon. Member's strictures on its exports are not entirely justified.

Coke Ovens

Mr. Neal: asked the Minister of Power how many coke oven plants have been closed during the years 1958, 1959, and 1960.

Mr. Wood: Nine in 1958, three in 1959 and two, so far, in 1960.

Mr. Neal: Can the Minister say how many of the coke oven plants which have been closed are owned by the National Coal Board?

Mr. Wood: I understand that one of these plants was closed by the iron and steel industry and that the other plants belonged to the National Coal Board.

Mr. Neal: asked the Minister of Power what is the expected increase in consumption of coke by the steel industry during the next twelve months; and what are his plans for the immediate erection of new coke ovens, in view of the expected increase.

Mr. Wood: The steel industry is expected to need 2½ million tons more coke for blast furnaces in 1960 than in 1959. A further increase of 750,000 tons is expected in 1961. The coke oven capacity already in being or under construction is sufficient to provide the quantity likely to be required.

Mr. Neal: Is it not a fact that a gentleman's agreement existed between the National Coal Board and the steel industry concerning the production of industrial coke for the steel industry? Is it further correct to say that this agreement has now been broken by the proposed erection, with the aid of public


money, of a coke oven plant in Scotland to supply the steel industry? Which side is the Minister on in this controversy—the side of the private enterprise concern which has broken this agreement, or the side of the National Coal Board?

Mr. Wood: I do not think that the agreement has been broken. Perhaps the hon. Member has in mind both Colvilles' plant and Richard Thomas and Bald-win's plant. As I told his hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) on 21st March, extensive discussions took place and eventual agreement was reached in connection with Richard Thomas and Baldwins coking oven plant. As for Colvilles, there were perfectly good technical reasons, including the very long rail haul, which made it quite impossible for the coke which it needed to be taken from outside.

Mr. Neal: Whatever reason the Minister may have had in his mind, does he agree that the National Coal Board could have met the needs of the Colvilles' plant?

Mr. Wood: That would have been liable to impose on Colvilles the need to bring its coke from Durham, or more than 100 miles, whatever the agreement might be, and therefore I think the technical reasons against taking this coal from elsewhere were overwhelming.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

Vertical Take-off Aircraft

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Aviation (1) what study has been made of the possible Commonwealth uses of vertical take-off and landing aircraft; and what offers were made by, and what invitations extended to, Canada and other oversea Commonwealth countries to assist in the joint development of a vertical take-off aircraft with France and Germany;
(2) to what extent the vertical take-off aircraft to be jointly developed by the United Kingdom, France and Germany will be adaptable to operations in jungle, bush and other confined areas and to other purposes in the Commonwealth.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Duncan Sandys): This aircraft is primarily designed to meet a N.A.T.O. requirement. Canada, the only other Commonwealth

country in N.A.T.O., has been kept fully informed. This type of aircraft should, in addition, be suitable for use from unprepared surfaces and in confined areas outside Europe. Other Commonwealth countries will therefore be given full information about this project.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I ask what study has been made of the possible use of such aircraft in regions like the shores of the Canadian Lakes, and the Caribbean Islands, where important towns and centres are separated by water, and space for landing and take-off is not unlimited?

Mr. Sandys: Of course, vertical takeoff aircraft will take off in a very small space in any part of the world. This aircraft is primarily designed to be a military aircraft.

Mr. Chetwynd: Are we to understand from the Minister's reply that agreement has been reached with France and Germany to go into production with this aircraft? Can the Minister say what stage the negotiations have reached?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know why the hon. Member should assume that. I did not mention either of those countries in my reply. I gave a full statement the other day about the negotiations which are taking place. Discussions are continuing between ourselves and France and Germany—

Mr. Rankin: What for?

Mr. Sandys: —and I had a further talk on this subject with the French Defence Minister when he was over here the other day.

Sunday Services, Scotland

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will state the reason for, and amount of, the surcharge made by him on the British European Air Services in respect of certain services in Scotland, indicating the date, duration, amount, and incidence of such surcharge.

Mr. Hendry: asked the Minister of Aviation what is the rate of surcharge being demanded from British European Airways for the use of Dyce Airport for Sunday services to Orkney, Shetland, and the south; and what is the actual cost of providing facilities for these services,


having regard to the fact that Dyce Airport is used on Sundays for military purposes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): The normal surcharge for the Sunday services which B.E.A. proposed to operate at Aberdeen, Kirwall and Sumburgh would be 75 per cent. of the standard landing fee, which would not cover the extra cost of opening the aerodromes. My right hon. Friend has therefore asked B.E.A. to pay the extra cost in full. This would be about£134 at Aberdeen,£30 at Kirkwall and£14 at Sumburgh on each Sunday. I understand that B.E.A.'s schedules covered every Sunday from 1st June to 1st October.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister realise that that Answer is based on a fallacy? Aberdeen Airport already opens on Sundays for other purposes, and to open it for the purpose now sought would not add any extra expense. Is the Minister aware, therefore, that he is in breach of duty in depriving the people of north-east Scotland of this service, and will he rectify that?

Mr. Rippon: The circumstance in which the aerodrome is now opened on Sundays is very different. In so far as the University Air Squadron is concerned, to which the hon. and learned Member may be referring, it is agreed that the cost shall be reimbursed by the Air Ministry.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my hon. Friend publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT what it costs the taxpayers to keep all these services in Scotland going?

Mr. Rippon: Regarding these three aerodromes, I can say that each journey is subsidised to the extent of about£3.

Mr. Grimond: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to know the situation regarding Aberdeen, because the extra cost to Orkney and Shetland is not so very heavy? Further, is he aware that these services are heavily booked at weekends and that this is a moment when extra services would be economically justified? In view of the late cancellation of the services, is there any chance that they may be reopened again at least for this summer and then the future position reconsidered?

Mr. Rippon: The extra cost would be£1,800.

Travel Agencies (Club Flights)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation if he is aware of the High Court ruling on 18th May last, that cut-price club air holidays are legal; and what action he proposes to take to acquire powers in this matter such as his department formerly purported to exercise.

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he proposes to introduce legislation, in the light of the High Court decision on 18th May that clubs organised by travel agencies to enable them to circumvent the conditions which bind airlines operating scheduled services, are legal.

Mr. Sandys: I am aware of this decision. The Civil Aviation (Licensing) Bill is designed to provide the powers needed to bring services of this kind under proper control.

Mr. Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that he has not answered the Question. He knows that the Bill is not yet an Act of Parliament. Can he say what he proposes to do between now and the time when the Bill becomes law? If an application is made for one of these flights, must he automatically accept the application, or what power has he to prevent a club holiday scheme going on, so that the services of the nationalised Corporations may not be prejudiced?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think this decision will have much practical effect for the simple reason that these services are arranged quite a time in advance. Before the next series of services can be brought in, services which have been planned since the decision of the court, the new Bill—assuming that it goes through both Houses—will be in force.

Mr. Rankin: So the right hon. Gentleman will just take his time?

Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that some travel agencies seem to take an entirely different view from that which he has expressed? They have expressed a belief that despite the provisions of the new Bill, this decision will allow them to undertake charter arrangements


under the guise of a club and charge any fares they like irrespective of the charges which scheduled services have to apply? Is the Minister quite convinced that when the new legislation becomes law that will not be possible?

Mr. Sandys: That was one of the points which we looked at very carefully indeed when the Bill was drafted. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, from the discussions which we had during the passage of the Bill about passengers travelling on separate fares even though they may be members of a club, any flight involving such passengers will require an air service licence.

Aircraft Workers (Redundancy)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation if he is aware that an Friday, 13th May, 150 workers at Stevenage received their redundancy notices from De Havillands, that a further 150 will have left by 3rd June, that the future of others is unsettled, and that unemployment also threatens those employed by Sperry's at Bracknell; and if he will slow down the cancellation of orders in relation to the Blue Streak missile to avoid industrial hardship.

Mr. Sandys: The facts are substantially as stated in the first part of the Question. As regards the second part, it would not be right for me to expend public funds on work which is no longer needed.

Mr. Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of the employees to whom I refer in my Question have come from Scotland? There the Government have given them only unemployment and they come to these places in the south of England where they are promised employment and receive the same as they got in Scotland —unemployment. As that is the result of Government policy and the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, what is he proposing to do about the men whom he is causing to be unemployed?

Mr. Sandys: I am afraid that I have no information of the extent to which men working at Bracknell came from Scotland. The purpose of providing these new towns round London is to relieve congestion in the Metropolitan area and not primarily to find employment for people from Scotland. Be that as it may,

I am naturally extremely sympathetic to the difficulties which have arisen for these people wherever they may be and from wherever they may have come.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Minister aware that some of these workers have been living in these houses for only a matter of a few months with the assurance of continued full employment? Since, for political reasons, he continued expenditure on the Blue Streak missile for very much longer than most people thought necessary, will he now consider whether, having regard to the possibility of new developments providing re-employment for these workers in perhaps a few weeks' time, it would not be a matter of economy for the Government, as well as to the firm, to slow down this process of unemployment and see whether there is going to be more work, by sub-contract or in other ways, for these workers?

Mr. Sandys: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I feel quite confident there is no intention on the part of the firm to get rid of the men if there is a foreseeable prospect of employing them within, as he suggested, a very short time. The people who are being discharged at the moment are those for whom there is no foreseeable prospect of employment in that firm.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can my right hon. Friend say how soon an announcement will be made about the use of Blue Streak as a vehicle in cosmic research? Is he aware that the French have fired a four-stage rocket? Would it not be very curious indeed if this country allowed France to maintain an irrevocable lead over us in this new science?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think there is any question of this country allowing France to have a lead in this new science, as my hon. Friend says. A decision will be announced as soon as possible, but there are quite a number of matters which have to be examined.

Mr. Rankin: Does the Minister recollect that, in reply to me, he stated from the Dispatch Box that his new policy in aviation would produce more employment and, as a result, people came to these places looking for employment, but now he is giving them unemployment? What is he going to do about it? He made a promise.

Mr. Sandys: I do not think the numbers of people employed at Sperry's at Bracknell has been affected by any statements I made in the last few months. This labour force has been in existence a great deal longer than that.

Mr. van Straubenzee: While appreciating that my right hon. Friend has given very personal consideration to this matter, may I ask if he will continue to keep in the forefront of his mind that when it is a matter of a new town men have not only moved their skills but have also moved their lives?

Mr. Sandys: I am very conscious of that.

Mr. J. Griffiths: When, or immediately after, he makes decisions on policy which are likely to affect the employment of people in the service of companies working for his Ministry, does the right hon. Gentleman consult the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour about the possibility of providing alternative work? We have had experience of decisions subsequently affecting men and communities because of lack of co-ordination between Ministers.

Mr. Sandys: I do not think there can be criticism on those grounds. I have been in the closest touch with the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade on this matter. Not only are we doing what we can in the ordinary course of events to try to help these men to get employment, but I am trying to take what steps I myself can to find them work within the sphere of Government orders to bring subcontracting work to these factories.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be taken after Nine o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

PEPPIATT REPORT

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Departmental Committee on a Levy on Betting on Horse Races.
I think that it would be right for me to begin by thanking the Government for appointing this Departmental Committee, generally known as the Peppiatt Committee, and by congratulating Sir Leslie Peppiatt and his colleagues on the speedy way in which they completed their task. Before referring to the Report of the Committee, it might be as well to try to answer in advance a question which may be in the minds of hon. Members and people outside, namely, why should there be a levy on betting to help racing, or—as it is sometimes quite erroneously put—why should bookmakers be called on to subsidise owners?
Racing is a traditional feature of our national life and provides entertainment for millions of people. As the Report points out:
interest in horse racing is not confined to one section of the community
The same could be said of cricket and football, but it costs very much more for the public to go racing than it does to go to those games. It costs£3 to go to Tattersalls at Epsom, on Derby Day, but to get similar accommodation at a Test Match at Lords would probably cost£1 and a similar seat at the Cup Final at Wembley would cost 25s.
Up to 1939, racing was financed by people who were able to do so as a hobby. Today those people have largely disappeared. Owning racehorses is, and no doubt always will be, an expensive amusement. No sensible person would ever go into it in the hope of making money, but owners in this country are at a very big disadvantage compared with owners in countries like France, Ireland and the United States.
It is not only owners who are at a disadvantage. The amenities for the general public at most of our racecourses leave a very great deal to be desired. The accommodation is worse and the admission charges are much higher than in France, for example, where there is about the same amount of racing. That


is not the fault of the racecourse companies. Few of them can afford to make the improvements which are so badly needed. The explanation is that the amount of money ploughed back into racing from betting in this country is negligible compared with the revenue derived from the Totalisator, or the PariMutuel, as it is called in France and the United States.
The answer to the question, why should the bookmakers be called on to subsidise owners, is that they are not asked to do anything of the kind. Off-the-course bookmakers are simply asked to make a reasonable contribution to racing and thus to make it possible for more people to go in greater comfort to watch the sport which provides a living for thousands of bookmakers, most of whom pay nothing at all towards it.
Last year, bookmakers on the course paid about£450,000 to the racecourses. I understand that they also gave£12,000 to the Jockey Club to defray the cost of ring officials, but the course bookmakers are only a small proportion of the total number of bookmakers. Off-the-course bookmakers do the greater part of the business, but all that they were able to contribute was about£60,000 to the Racecourse Amenities Fund. According to the Churches' Committee on Gambling, it is estimated that last year£365 million was staked on racing in this country. The Tote turnover came to£28½million, from which it would appear that bookmakers have a turnover of£336½million. The Peppiatt Committee puts the figure at£200 million, based on figures given in the Report of the Royal Commission ten years ago. I am certain that the turnover has increased since then very largely because of the many races which are televised.
I want to make it quite clear that I am not setting out to attack the bookmakers. I should be very sorry indeed to see them disappear from the racecourses. But I do not think that off-the-course bookmakers should be able to make an income from an industry to whose costs they contribute virtually nothing. It is only fair to say that any bookmaker which whom I have discussed the matter believes that it is perfectly right that a contribution should be made. They are quite willing to make a contribution.
To anyone who disagrees with that idea I should like to point out that bookmakers cannot continue to operate in horse racing unless there are people who are willing to own race horses. The owners can get on perfectly well without the bookmakers; indeed, they get on a great deal better without them in such countries as France and the United States, where there is a Tote monopoly. So, for that matter, does the punter. It costs three times as much to go racing in England as it does in France. The admission charge to the Grand Prix at Longchamps, in the equivalent of Tatter-sails, is 8s. and, as I have said, it costs£3 to go into Tattersalls on Derby Day.
The unfavourable position of the owners in this country can readily be seen by looking at the amount of prize money given, seeing who puts that money up and comparing that with France and the United States. I do not want to give a great many figures. It is enough to say that the average value of a race in the United States is£920, in France£800 and in this country£720. The percentage of the stake money provided by the owners is about 5 per cent. in France and the United States and about 35 per cent. in this country. In racing, under National Hunt Rules, it is over 50 per cent.
May I say, once again, that owning racehorses is a hobby and that owners do not expect to make racing pay, but, for all that, in France an owner can expect to recover about two-thirds of his racing expenses in prize money, while here the best he can hope for is between a fifth and a quarter.
Before I leave the question of the need for a levy, I should like to say something about the trainers' position. In paragraph 13 of the Committee's Report we read:
Some trainers were said to be losing money.
I should not be far wrong in saying that nearly every trainer is losing money from the point of view of the training fees which he receives for the horses in his stables. It is the normal practice for a trainer to receive so much a week for each horse he trains and also to receive 10 per cent. of the stake money won. It is roughly correct to say that a trainer's costs have risen by about three times since before the war and his training fees have about doubled.
There are very few trainers who get enough out of the 10 per cent. to make their stables a paying proposition. They have to rely more and more on betting and hoping to be successful, and on dealing, to make both ends meet, and that is most undesirable. Owners can rarely pay more, because the stakes they can hope to win are so low. If a trainer puts up his fees he runs the risk of the owners reducing the number of horses they have in training. The recent increase in stablemen's wages has made the position worse, and yet I do not believe even now that the wages are high enough to attract the best type of boys into racing, and that is most certainly not the trainers' fault.
Paragraphs 7 to 11 of the Report refer to the position of the breeders. I do not want to say much about that, but I would add that during the last fifteen years an increasing number of our best races have been won by foreign horses, which is largely due to the fact that more and more of our best stallions and mares are being exported. These are the horses which ought to be kept at home if we are to be able to breed the winners of our own best races and thereby to maintain the position of British bloodstock.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: There are no figures to support that.

Mr. Johnson: I could give the hon. member a great many figures. We are exporting too many of our best horses, and I can tell the hon. Member afterwards the names of the horses. The breeders cannot keep those horses at home unless racing is much more prosperous than it is, and racing will not be prosperous until more money is ploughed back from betting.
As I have been trying to show that there is a need for a levy, I need hardly say how much I welcome the Committee's conclusion that a levy is desirable. Coming to paragraph 23 of the Report, however, I am by no means convinced of the Committee's arguments against a levy being based on turnover. The Committee points out that after the Betting and Gaming Bill becomes law the position will be very different from that in 1926, when there was a tax on turnover which met little success. In point of fact, the bookmakers succeeded in sabotaging it. But there was no Totalisator in 1926, and any attempt to do the

same thing today would, I think, be dealt with in very short order.
There is another argument against a levy on turnover. The Report says that
because of the nature of betting transactions, opportunities for evasion of the levy on stakes would be widespread.
Surely similar considerations apply to a levy on profits. I do not see how profits can be calculated without knowing the amount which is staked. Be that as it may, the fact remains that a levy on turnover works perfectly well in Ireland in the case of both on and off-course bookmakers and of the Tote. In any case, I think that, in this connection particularly, a levy on profits will be very difficult indeed to define.
It may well be that when the figures of the profits for the classification of bookmakers are received, it will then appear that, so far from being the avaricious and opulent people that they are generally supposed to be, we shall find by their small profits that bookmakers are simply philanthropists who seek no reward to themselves but who are just providing opportunities for backers to lose their money. If a tax on turnover is found to be unacceptable, it would, in my view, be very much better to base the levy on the number of a bookmaker's employees rather than to try to make these very difficult calculations about profits.
Although, on the question of the tax on turnover, I am only very dubious about the Committee's proposals that the tax should be on profits, I disagree absolutely and entirely with the first sentence of paragraph 29 of the Report, which reads:
We were not satisfied that£3 million is a realistic assessment of what is needed or, for that matter, of what bookmakers can reasonably be required to provide.
I was very disappointed when my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, in answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), on 3rd May, said something which appeared to indicate that the Government were disposed to accept the Committee's figure of£1 million to£1¼million as being about right for the bookmakers' levy.
As regards what is needed, I believe that the figure of£3 million given by the Jockey Club is an absolute minimum. As regards the amount bookmakers can be reasonably required to pay, I draw


the attention of the House to the position in Ireland. In Ireland, in 1958—these are the last figures I have available—the bookmakers' turnover was£14,684,000. On that turnover they paid£1,024,000 to the State and to the Racing Board.
Yet we are told by the Committee that it is unreasonable to expect bookmakers in this country to contribute£3 million when their turnover is estimated at£300 million. Also, I find it very hard to believe the Committee's figure that 87 per cent. of all bookmakers make less than£3,000 a year. That is the information the Committee obtained from the Bookmakers' Protection Association. I am certain that the big firms at the top end of the scale would be getting off very lightly indeed with a levy of£2,250. The bookmakers should contribute very much more than the Report proposes. The only bookmaker with whom I have had an opportunity to discuss this agreed at once not only that bookmakers should contribute more, but that they could very easily afford to do so.
The Report says nothing about taxation. That is probably due to the terms of reference. It is not clear whether the figures in paragraph 40 refer to gross profits or net profits. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us. It will be generally agreed that the Tote and bookmakers should be treated alike as regards taxation. Last year it was decided on an appeal to the House of Lords that payments by the Racecourse Betting Control Board to help horse racing, horse breeding, veterinary science and education under the terms of the 1928 Act were subject to tax. If bookmakers are allowed to charge the levy paid as a business expense—it seems to be generally thought that that will be the case—it would be quite wrong to say that the Tote has to pay tax on the amount distributed from that source.
Paragraph 51 of the Report says, I think very rightly:
We suggest that it would be necessary by Statute to impose the levy in general terms and to set up the Central Board and the Bookmakers' Levy Board.
The Tote Board exists already. To treat the Tote Board in the same way as bookmakers, it would seem that a statutory levy based on Tote turnover should also be imposed on the Tote Board, which would, in turn, have the

duty of passing this on to the Central Board for distribution, as suggested in paragraph 50.
That levy then would be chargeable in arriving at the taxable surplus of the Totalisator Board, just as the bookmakers' levy would be a deduction in the assessable income of each bookmaker. The Central Board, which would receive the levy paid by bookmakers and the Tote, would not be carrying on a taxable trade, but would be acting as trustees for the distribution of the money received, so it would not have to pay tax on the levy. Whether the ultimate beneficiaries paid tax would depend on circumstances in each separate case.
What I believe is essential is that the Tote Board should be made quite independent of the Central Board, just as the Bookmakers' Levy Board is independent. If it is not made absolutely clear that the Tote Board is not just an executive wing of the Central Board, there will be a danger, because of the Central Board's association with the Tote Board, of it being looked on as carrying on a taxable trade, which is not the intention of the Report.
The Report suggests in paragraph 45 that the Central Board should consist of a chairman appointed by the Home Secretary, representatives of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee, the chairman of the Bookmakers' Levy Board and the chairman of the Totalisator Board. There has been some criticism of this proposal on the ground that, if the donors are represented, as they are, the beneficiaries should also be represented. That would mean that the Racehorse Owners' Association Ltd., the Thoroughbred Breeders' Association, and the Racecourse Association Ltd. should all provide a member of the Board.
I agree with the principle that if either donors or beneficiaries are represented both should be, but there is a very great deal to be said for keeping the Central Board small and unbiased. As I believe that it will have a task to perform which is very similar to that carried out successfully by the Totalisator Board for over thirty years, it might well be modelled on the lines of the Totalisator Board, though perhaps reduced in number.
The composition of the Tote Board is as follows: chairman and another member appointed by the Home Secretary, three members by the Jockey Club, two by the National Hunt Committee, and one each by the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Agriculture, the Racecourse Association Ltd. and the Committee of Tattersalls. In forming the new Central Board, I would start with that composition. I should strike out at once the representative of the Racecourse Association Ltd., as that body is a beneficiary.
I cannot see that it is in the least necessary for the Committee of Tattersalls to be represented. Is there any need for four members as well as the chairman to be appointed by Ministers? It might be enough if the Home Secretary appointed the chairman and gave up his right to appoint another member. I do not mean any disrespect to Scotland, but I do not think that a member appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland is altogether essential. I believe that the chairman certainly should be full-time and paid.
Paragraph 55 of the Report seems to need clarification. I hope that when legislation is introduced to implement the Committee's proposals it will be made quite clear, in the first place, that the Central Board alone will be responsible for making proposals to the Home Secretary as a result of the yearly review and, before doing so, the Levy Board will have had the opportunity to express its views to the Central Board. Secondly, it should be made equally clear that the Home Secretary will have the power to vary the amount of the levy as circumstances require.
My final point, which is very important, concerns the Committee's timetable. My right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary told the House recently that the Government intended to give
legislative effect to the Committee's proposals at an early opportunity and in sufficient time to enable the Committee's timetable to be followed." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1960; Vol. 622, c. 885.]
The timetable is Appendix II to the Report. I hope that my right hon. Friend's statement does not mean that it is intended to stick to the timetable exactly as it is set out by the Committee. I cannot understand, and no one with

whom I have discussed this matter can understand, why it is necessary to wait until 1962 for the first payment of the levy. Why should not the amount to be paid be worked out on auditor's certificates based on the profits for the year ending 31st March, 1961, instead of waiting for another year? That is quite unnecessary.
Our thanks are due to Sir Leslie Peppiatt and his colleagues for producing what I believe to be at least the framework of a very reasonable plan for a contribution from betting to help racing. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give serious consideration to the levy being based on turnover rather than on profits —or, perhaps, on the number of the bookmaker's employees. Even more, I hope that he will not feel bound to accept the quite inadequate figure of£1 million to£l¼million as a reasonable amount for bookmakers to provide.
If my right hon. Friend does accept that figure, those who, like myself, feel that it is quite inadequate must console ourselves, I suppose, with the thought that it is subject to annual review; that, at any rate, a start is being made; and with the hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that there is no need to wait until 1962 before acting.
I hope that there will be no delay in bringing forward the necessary legislation, but I would emphasise that although Parliament can give legal force to a plan for a levy on betting, whether or not it works will depend to a very large extent on the good will and cooperation of the off-the-course bookmakers. If they are not willing to help, there is a perfectly good alternative, but I hope that they will realise that it is in their best interests, as it is in the interests of everyone connected with racing, that this plan should succeed.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Those who are interested in racing will be indebted to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) for choosing this subject, following his luck in the gamble for Private Members' Motions. I interjected during his speech to comment on the lack of information relating to the export of an excessive number of top-class horses. He said that he had figures to prove that to be a fact.
It is clear from the Report of the Peppiatt Committee that, despite all the resources it had at its disposal, it did not have that information. In paragraph 9 of its Report it refers to the fact that it was told that top-class horses,
valuable for breeding, are being exported in too great a number. We attempted to estimate the volume of exports of thoroughbred horses but it is not nossible to do so with any accuracy.
The Committee goes on to say that the official statistics do not differentiate between thoroughbreds and other horses and ponies, or between bloodstock of the highest quality and horses sent to the Continent for slaughter. It was, therefore, not possible for the Committee, on the information available to it, to say whether or not bloostock is being exported in excessive quantity—

Mr. E. Johnson: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. Nasrullah was sold for£132,000, and Royal Charger for£90,000—both to the United States; Tulyar was sold to Ireland for£250,000. Kerkeb was sold to the United States for£20,000. Blenheim, Mahmoud and Bahram, all Derby winners, went to the United States, and Fair Trial Respite, a yearling, also went to America, for£18,000. I could give the hon. Gentleman details of a lot of other sales of this type.

Mr. Lipton: But that is over a fairly long period of years. I agree that if all those exports took place in one year it would be a very disastrous prospect—

Mr. George Wigg: I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) that there is only one Derby winner a year.

Mr. Lipton: But the hon. Member for Blackley referred to other horses besides Derby winners. In any event, that is still no proof of the assertion that top-class horses are being exported in too great numbers. If there was any such evidence, why did not the Peppiatt Committee have it placed before it? If the evidence was placed before it, why did the Committee not come to the conclusion to which the hon. Member for Blackley and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) seem to have come already on the basis, presumably, of better information? They must have

better information than the Peppiatt Committee had.
If that is so, it is a great pity that that Committee was not provided with the required information on this very important subject. As a consequence, it came to the conclusion, in paragraph 18:
We do not feel that we are justified in expressing a general opinion whether there has been any deterioration in British bloodstock.
Whether or not the exports to which the hon. Member for Blackley has referred are excessive, the Peppiatt Committee remains unconvinced that there has been a consequent deterioration in British bloodstock.
The hon. Member did not mention a very important matter put forward to the Committee. He did not refer to the increasing tendency to syndicate stallions, and the suggestion made to the Committee that the most likely way in which to retain stallions for British racing was through the National Stud. Why cannot the National Stud exert itself a little more in this direction, if further exertions are required?
It has been pointed out that it has not hitherto been possible for the National Stud to build up a reserve fund that could be used when a top-class stallion came on the market, but if it is necessary to retain top-class British stallions in this country there is no reason at all why the National Stud should not be provided with the necessary facilities to enable that to be done, and to prevent British bloodstock being exported to such an extent as to result in the deterioration of the bloodstock left here.
The hon. Member then referred to the plight of the racehorse owners. I cannot say that my heart bleeds very profusely for them. The hon. Gentleman said more than once that racehorse owning is a hobby. I wonder whether the Inland Revenue authorities regard it exclusively as a hobby. How many racehorse owners submit returns to the Inland Revenue showing that they incur a loss on their owning activities? The available figures do not, of course, provide any indication of the incomes of British owners, but I should guess that most of them have an income of at least£5,000 a year. If anyone tries to be a racehorse


owner on less, he will find things a little difficult.
Assuming that the owner has an income of just over£5,000 a year and incurs a loss on his owning, what does it mean? The man with an income of between£5,000 and£6,000 pays tax at the rate of 5s. 6d., and when, to that, is added the standard rate of tax he pays 13s. 3d. That means that two-thirds of what he loses in maintaining a horse throughout the year is paid for by the Exchequer. It is, therefore, not true to say, as was argued by the Racehorse Owners' Association, that it costs the owner an average of£638 a year. That may be the gross expenditure—I do not challenge it—but if two-thirds of that loss is set off against the racehorse owner's tax liability, the net cost to him of his so-called hobby is about£200 a year.

Mr. E. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that one. Does he not recall the case before the war, of the late Lord Glanely, who was not even allowed to charge the cost of his racehorses against the cost of his stud farm?

Mr. Lipton: There we have another example in which the most up-to-date case that can be produced by the hon. Member for Blackley is something that happened before the war. I should like to know what is the current practice of the Inland Revenue, and someone who owns a racehorse, and who is not allowed to set off his racehorse owning losses against his other taxable income, to provide evidence of it. If that is done, I shall gladly withdraw my statement.

Mr. John Farr: May I give the hon. Gentleman some fairly up-to-date information? I have owned racehorses for some time. I have regularly made an annual loss. The actual annual cost of keeping a racehorse in training today is nearer£1,000 and at no time have I ever been permitted to place any of my losses against Income Tax.

Mr. Lipton: Then I withdraw the statement because of the up-to-date evidence provided by the hon. Member —the unfortunate hon. Member opposite —who has been having such a rough time. He must from now on be regarded as a public benefactor as well as a private Member.
The other point to which the hon. Member for Blackley kept referring was this. He said that the bookmaker ought to pay this, that, or the other. I shall not argue with him about the amount which he thinks the bookmaker or the bookmaking fraternity ought to pay towards the maintenance of racing, but surely it would be more frank to admit that the bookmaker, whatever scheme the Government devise on the basis of the Peppiatt Committee's recommendation, will not bear the cost of these extra charges which he will have to pay by way of levy. They will be charged to the punter, who will, as usual, have to pay for the lot. Therefore, we do not need to waste very much time on that aspect, because the fact remains that the punter, the general public, will pay, in the long run, for all the fun and games.
I suggest, therefore, that in considering the method of allocating the money to be raised by this levy it is the general public who ought to be given the primary benefit. If, for example, it is decided that£1 million, or thereabouts, should be raised from the bookmaking fraternity, who will act as collectors for the racing industry from the general public, it is hardly worth while to divert£250,000 of that money to the racehorse owners. According to figures that have been provided by the Racehorse Owners' Association, the total deficit, including the National Hunt figures, is about£4 million a year.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and those who share with him the dubious honour of being racehorse owners are, between them, bearing a loss of£4 million a year. Even if the Peppiatt Committee's recommendation on this aspect is accepted, we shall be giving to this section of the community which is losing£4 million a year a paltry£250,000 a year, which will not make all that difference to them. I would ask the hon. Member, who has had an unfortunate experience as a result of owning racehorses, whether that small percentage will make any difference, whether it will induce him to give it up as a bad job or to carry on. The sum of£250,000 towards a total loss of£4 million will not influence the attitude of racehorse owners very much one way or the other.
The hon. Member for Blackley left me in doubt as to how trainers continue to


carry on at all, except by some form of betting and other activities which he did not very clearly specify. Of course, that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and, therefore, if racehorse trainers and their staffs are to be allowed to earn a living wage in a respectable sort of way, perhaps something ought to be done to help them.
The fundamental point of the Peppiatt Committee's Report is referred to in paragraph 19. That paragraph is, in my view, the crux of the whole matter. Without it we could not really come to a proper decision. It says:
It is not our view, however, that without a subsidy horse racing will rapidly decline or die. That is clearly not so.
If the Peppiatt Committee has come to that conclusion, I shall not dispute it. It is in the light of that very important conclusion that we should decide what, if anything, ought to be done about the Report. May I say, once again—

Major W. Hicks Beach: The hon. Gentleman has referred to paragraph 19. If he wants to be fair will he read the concluding sentence?

Mr. Lipton: It does not upset me to read the last sentence. It says:
Weighing the evidence as a whole, we consider that a levy is desirable.

Hon. Members: Read on.

Mr. Lipton: I have read the last sentence. How much more do hon. Members want me to read? I will read the whole Report if that is the wish of hon. Members who have not read the Report themselves. I am entitled to be as selective in my approach as the hon. Member for Blackley was in moving the Motion, and as, no doubt, other hon. Members will be in the course of their arguments. Whether the levy is desirable or not, the fact remains that there is no evidence that without a subsidy horse racing will rapidly decline or die. It is in the light of that overriding consideration that I would ask the House to consider the subject matter of the Motion.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. James Dance: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) on bringing this very important subject before us today, and also on the

very clear and lucid way in which he took us through the Peppiatt Report and explained why this money is required for racing.
I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I should like to refer to this matter as it relates to a racecourse. I must declare my interest in that I am a director of a racecourse. I feel that the executives of racecourses have three duties to perform. The first is to provide the finest racing that they can; the second is to see that the public are given the best amenities and are able to go racing at a reasonable cost; and the third is that when those two requirements have been satisfied they must see that the shareholders are allowed a reasonable return on their money.
To have the best racing, we want a good many runners, and to attract the runners one has to offer an inducement to owners to run their horses, through good stake money, good prize money and travelling allowances. Next, one must ensure that there is good going. Last summer, many races were carved up because the going became so hard. In Birmingham we are today going into the whole business of how we can water the course. It is not a simple matter. One cannot just water the course. One has to find the water in the first place. We may have to sink a very expensive borehole, and we may, possibly, have to put in a purification plant to be able to use water from a very murky river called the Thame which, at present, would certainly kill the grass if we used the water direct.
Finally, one must ensure that racing is fair. For some time there has been in use in America a new system employing two cameras, one straight down the course and one at an angle, covering the last three furlongs of a race. If there is any trouble, the stewards can, within three minutes of the end of the race, I think, call for the film. I am told that this has done a tremendous amount in ensuring that there is cleaner race riding in America than before the system was introduced. We wish to use this system in Birmingham. In fact, we shall use it at three of our major meetings this summer. But it will cost£150 a day—a lot of money on top of everything else.


We are charging the general public far too much for admission. We have to do it. I am sorry to say. For example, to enter the Tattersalls ring, at Birmingham, the punter has to pay 22s. 6d., whereas to enter a similar ring in France he pays only the equivalent of 7s. 6d. Moreover, our amenities are not all that good. We have spent£105,000 on improving stands and other amenities since the war, but this has really been no more than nibbling at the problem. We want a great deal more money, because I think that the public are entitled to have these things done. They will, I think, go racing much more if the amenities are improved.
There are 72 racecourses in the country, only nine of which make a profit of over£10,000 per annum, which represents only 8 per cent. on the capital employed. The remaining 63 courses average only 2½per cent. of the capital employed, so the average earning is 4 per cent.—ridiculously low when one considers it in comparison with other industries and enterprises.
I should like the House to have a few figures actually from Birmingham. I refer to Birmingham because I know it, although I appreciate very well that the same problems and situations arise at most racecourses throughout the country. Those who are not well acquainted with the subject may be rather surprised to know that we spend£15,000 on maintenance, just keeping the course going each year. That is quite a lot of money. It costs£1,500 to stage a day's racing, that is to say, before one person has been through the turnstiles and, of course, before any prize money is paid out.
That sounds a lot of money, too, but when one considers, for instance, that we pay£150 for police on every day of racing, one soon realises why the figure is so great. If, as so frequently happens in the winter, a day's racing is stopped by fog or frost, that£1,500 goes straight down the drain, unless one insures, as we do; but the premium is very high indeed to cover that risk.
It might be convenient to the House if I give the breakdown to show how£1 of takings is distributed. The£1 goes in this way: 7s. towards prize money; 7s. 1d. to the meeting expenses; 3s. to overheads; 1s. 6d. to taxation; 10½d. to dividend; 4d to reserve; 2d. to directors' fees and expenses. It can be seen that

we are not greatly extravagant in the way we attempt to run our course. I hope that those figures are of value to hon. Members in considering this matter.
I feel that the off-course punter and the off-course bookmaker should contribute towards racing. The first point I made, improving the quality of racing, surely affects them just as much as it affects the man who goes along and pays through the turnstile. The off-course people want a good fair day's sport. They get it, but they pay nothing or very little towards it at the moment.
I pay tribute to the on-course bookmaker, however, who pays quite a large contribution towards racing inasmuch as he pays five times the normal admission charge for whichever ring he works in, and, of course, he pays for his staff in addition. The on-course bookmaker makes a good contribution towards racing. I pay tribute, also, to the Tote, the Racecourse Betting Control Board, which helps us a lot. Last year, it contributed£7,500 towards racing at Birmingham. Without that money we could not have met our balance. In addition to a direct contribution of that kind, of course, the Racecourse Betting Control Board pays charges for its staff who go to race meetings.
I welcome the Report because I believe that it will give extra support to racing. I hope that the "Peppiatt Racing Contribution Stakes" will be run at a much earlier date than is envisaged today.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I do not propose to detain the House very long. I recognise that those who wish to speak on this subject, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and some hon. Members opposite, are experts in this matter, but I must say, quite frankly, that the view I wish to put may well be different from the view which will be expressed generally.
When the Peppiatt Committee was first set up, as we know, the Betting and Gaming Bill was going through the House, and many of us thought that final decisions on the Bill should not be taken until we knew what the Peppiatt Committee had in mind. I hold the view—it is a personal one—that there is a tendency on the part of some hon. Members in the House and outside to wish to destroy the bookmaker.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance), speaking as someone concerned with a racecourse, gave the example of prices of admission in this country and in France. When such examples are given, I think that it should be mentioned—I suspect that it was deliberately not mentioned—that in France the Totalisator has a complete monopoly and there are no such people as bookmakers according to the general understanding of the name in this House.
It would be a very tragic day for British racing if the bookmaker were to be dismissed from the racing scene. I go racing very rarely for the simple reason, as I have said before, that I cannot afford it. I wish I could afford it; I should go far more often if I could. In my view, the greatest thing about racing, apart from finding out what the horses are and watching them running, is the animation of the bookmaking, the great excitement one has in going round and trying to see whether one can get a better price from one bookmaker as opposed to another. I think that I speak for many ordinary people who go racing when I say that the real excitement and pleasure of a meeting is had not from a cold-blooded Tote, but from going round and trying to get the best value for the particular horse which one fancies.
I understand that it has now been decided that, at long last, the bookmaker is to bear his share of a contribution towards the sport which provides him with his living. This was the idea behind the setting up of the Peppiatt Committee. I wish to put it on record that I myself am very glad indeed that we have had an indication from the Government that the Report of the Peppiatt Committee as it now stands will represent the conclusions of the Government. I should certainly oppose any higher contribution being made by the bookmaker.
Turnover figures have been mentioned. A total of£200 million was given by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson). I am not in a position to give figures, but I believe it to be right that bookmakers, after receiving bets, do sometimes lose. Believe it or not, the punter sometimes wins and, therefore, when we talk about total turnover, we must remember that some of it must go back to the punter. Otherwise, he could not carry on betting. I appre-

ciate that there are prosperous bookmakers—probably most of them are; I would not deny it—but we ought to make it quite clear, whenever we give these figures in the House, that we are talking about figures of net profit.
I should like to make this suggestion. I have read about it a lot and I think, on consideration, that it is practicable. I entirely support the hon. Member for Bromsgrove. Racecourses are entitled to more money than they are getting. They are entitled to provide better amenities for the public and better prizes for winning owners. I accept all that. My view —I do not know whether it is generally shared—is that there is a great deal to be said for the suggestion that the racecourse of which he is a director should be allowed to run its own tote.
The Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, is not something which we must never look at and discuss again. I do not deny that the Board has done a great job, but I believe that there must be more racing in this country. Racecourses must be given the chance to earn more money. They should be given the opportunity to operate their own totalisators, with certain moneys paid direct to the Jockey Club, and, if necessary, certain money paid to a charities fund.

Mr. Dance: We in Birmingham have gone into the question of running our own tote. We were absolutely dead against it. The Betting and Gaming Bill will make off-course cash betting legal. For the life of me, I do not see how a racecourse can run an off-course Tote. It would not have the facilities. We think that it is better that the matter should be left in present hands, but on a modified basis.

Mr. Mellish: We do not want to get confused. The Tote at Birmingham could be operated by a staff controlled by but loaned to the Birmingham racecourse authorities. It could be a hand-operated Tote. The Birmingham authorities could make a profit, which they are not making at the moment because they do not run the Tote, which could be used for the benefit of racing.

Mr. Dance: Is the hon. Member talking about an off-course Tote?

Mr. Mellish: I am talking about a Tote on the racecourse itself run by the owners of the racecourse.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) is suggesting happens in greyhound racing.

Mr. Mellish: I do not want to get tangled up with greyhound racing. I have enough to contend with as it is.
I believe that my suggestion is practicable. I was told that one great argument against it, however, was that the small track would find it very difficult to operate its own tote. I do not know whether the Government have considered this point. It may be an amateurish point of view, but if we are mainly concerned, as the Peppiatt Committee was concerned, with the future well-being of racing, we have seriously to ask ourselves what other means there are of getting more money for running racecourses. This is a principle with which I agree.
I do not believe that£1½million will be any hardship on bookmakers, but it is a beginning of what, in a few years' time, might be a rather sad story for British racing. If there is a genuine attempt—and I think that there is—to drive the bookmaker out of racing, I believe that Britain will regret it very much. During discussion of the Betting and Gaming Bill there was an attempt to destroy the bookmaker in the street. The right hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows my view about that. I hope that it will go out from this House that, unless we are careful, we will have seen the last of the bookmaker on British racecourses.

4.34 p.m.

Sir Hendrie Oakshott: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has left the Chamber, because there are one or two things which I should have liked to say to him. Perhaps he will return during my speech.
On the Second Reading of the Betting and Gaming Bill, I said that I would regard it as a very incomplete Measure unless provision were included in it for the attraction of money from betting into racing. By the time of Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had already set up the Committee under Sir Leslie Peppiatt, and it must, I suppose, have quickly become clear that the apparently simple terms

of reference of that Committee masked a problem of very great complexity.
Having read and studied the Report, it is only fair that I should say that I fully accept that it has raised matters which require a great deal of thought and consideration and, I imagine, very considerable drafting difficulties. This has made it virtually impossible to include provision to give effect to the findings of the Committee in the Betting and Gaming Bill in the present Session of Parliament. It is right that I should have said that in view of what I said on Second Reading. It is a pity, but I do not think that it can be helped.
I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend, first, for setting up the Committee, secondly, for accepting the basis of its findings, and, thirdly, for the undertaking which he has given to give legislative effect to the Report within the period necessary to fit in with the suggested timetable in the Report. Of course, one would wish to see it come into effect rather more quickly than has been suggested. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) is right in suggesting that this could so easily be done a year sooner than is suggested in the Report. I imagine that my right hon. Friend and the Joint Under-Secretary of State must have received representations from all sorts of bodies, which have to be given due weight, and the matter is bound to take a long time. I do not think that I can quarrel with the timetable.
I should like to add my tribute to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley to the work of Sir Leslie Peppiatt and his colleagues and for the speed and thoroughness with which they discharged their task. It is a Report which offers a good deal of hope that something which many of us have wanted done in racing for a long time will be done. It is satisfactory to know that the members of the Committee, who were drawn both from outside and inside racing and, in the case of those inside, from both sides of the rails, appear to have succeeded in arriving at a unanimous finding that it is desirable and practicable that betting on horse races should contribute to horse racing.
The hon. Member for Brixton must have enjoyed himself in his speech. He


had a good deal to say about breeding which was rather far removed from the facts. It is not a question of the amount of money involved in the export of thoroughbreds and of not having figures at one's fingertips. What the hon. Member overlooked is the lasting effect of loss that the export of even one or two of the well-known sires mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley will have on United Kingdom breeding for years to come. Some of this money should be diverted to breeders' prizes, some to bigger prizes for owners and, above all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) said, and about which he knows so much, better amenities for the customer and, I would hope, cheaper prices of admission.
Horse racing is far from being a pastime for rich men. If it were, it would not last very long. I do not seem to have time these days to go racing as often as I would like, but occasionally I get to some small meetings in the winter. One has only to see the great crowds from every walk of life at these meetings to know the great enjoyment which is derived from this sport. I should like to say how much I agree with the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee about the importance of trying to keep smaller meetings going. They need help just as much as the big meetings.
The Report is convincing in its finding that racing ought to have the contribution which the Committee suggests. The hon. Member for Brixton made much in his speech of paragraph 19 of the Report, and, in particular, the famous sentence:
It is not our view, however, that without a subsidy horse racing will rapidly decline or die".
I accept that sentence only because it includes the word "rapidly". I am sure that unless something is done it will die a slow death. I am also sure that it is a good thing that racing should receive this infusion, not only to keep it alive, but also, as the Committee rightly pointed out in the same paragraph, to improve it.
In the absence of the hon. Member for Brixton, who has now returned to the Chamber, I tried to say something about his remarks concerning breeding. I am sure that he enjoyed his speech. I certainly did, although it contained inaccuracies and a great deal of it was just

about as relevant as another speech I once heard him make at about 5 o'clock in the morning on the Army Estimates, when he entertained the Committee for nearly an hour on military bands. The hon. Member's speech today was neither well-informed nor particularly relevant.
There are two or three points of detail which I should like to mention. The first concerns the categories into which the bookmakers are to be divided. The Peppiatt Committee said, in paragraph 40, that
it might be found desirable to add new categories to those suggested".
I consider that to be right. In the case of Category B, for example, it may be extremely unfair for a bookmaker whose profits are, say,£12,600 to pay precisely the same levy as a man whose profits are£39,900. The bracket is too wide. We should try, if we can, without making it too complicated, to aim at something nearer a sliding scale.
My second point concerns the certification of bookmakers and how to decide into which category they fall. Paragraph 41 of the Peppiatt Report suggests that bookmakers should provide a statement signed by a qualified auditor. It is of first importance that the scheme should command the confidence of those who are affected by it, and that they should be able to feel that everybody will be treated in the same way and fairly. Therefore, I should like the independent auditor, who is visualised by the Peppiatt Committee as coming in at a later stage if the Levy Board is not satisfied with the original return, to be brought in at the first stage to certify. I hope that it will not be unduly difficult to do this. It would be a good thing, for it would engender greater confidence than there will be under the present arrangements.
Then, in regard to the functions and composition of the Central Board, I am sure that the Peppiatt Committee is right in suggesting, in paragraph 50, that the Central Board should collect the money both from the Totalisator Board and from the Bookmakers' Levy Board. There should be only one channel through which the money is ultimately disbursed to its final destination. That being so, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley, because I think that it would be better if the Board


were somewhat larger. It has important business to do in disbursing these moneys, and in its other duties. Therefore, it would be better and more satisfactory if it had a bigger independent element. I throw that out as a suggestion; there are precedents for it. It certainly should be a powerful Board which would command respect.
My last point is, again, a matter of detail concerning the interim arrangement for 1961–62. It is suggested in the Committee's Report that every bookmaker should pay£10 to get the scheme floated. I am not very happy about this. I agree that money is necessary, but the collection and the working of this idea simply for one year might present difficulties out of proportion to what would be gained. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may consider it worth while to see whether there is not some other way of finding the money which, we agree, is needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley, who initiated the debate and to whom I am grateful for taking his opportunity in the way that he did—I would have done the same had my number come out of the hat—told the House something of what other countries do for racing. Indeed, this is referred to in the Peppiatt Committee's Report. I believe it to be true that in France between 8 and 9 per cent. of the Tote turnover goes directly to racing. That must amount to a good many millions of pounds, certainly a great deal more than is in question here. I, too, should like to see a bigger figure than£1¼ million, but we should be thankful for small mercies. I am satisfied that we should go ahead with the scheme. I repeat my appreciation of the work of the Peppiatt Committee and my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his undertaking to give effect to its findings. Perhaps he will be grateful to me, too, if I refrain from trying to give him the Derby winner for next week, because I should almost certainly be wrong.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I should like to add my voice to the congratulations already tendered to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) on having the good fortune to draw first place in the Ballot and making this debate possible and also to con-

gratulate him on the good use to which he has put the time available to him. It would be churlish if I did not take the opportunity of tendering my thanks, for what they are worth, to Sir Leslie Peppiatt and the members of his Committee for taking on a difficult job and doing it as well as they have done it. I ought also to thank the Home Secretary for setting up the Peppiatt Committee. We take the right hon. Gentleman's good work so much for granted that one tends to forget the author of all these works.
As I am a member of the Racecourse Betting Control Board, as everybody in the House knows, I should make it clear that I am voicing my own opinions and not those of the Board. Having struck those agreeable and non-controversial notes, I should like to turn to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). He was a little unfairly dealt with by the hon. Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott). When my hon. Friend spoke on the debate on the Army Estimates, it was not at 5 o'clock in the morning. It was a 7 o'clock. He spoke not for an hour, but for an hour and twenty minutes. It was not quite as bad as the hon. Member pointed out, because on that occasion my hon. Friend had the advantage of my advice and, therefore, some parts of his speech were quite sensible.
Today, deprived of that privilege, my hon. Friend did not do quite as well. He directed his attention, however, quite accidentally, to the central points of what we are discussing. We have heard about owners, trainers, breeders, the public and the racecourses, but what about the poor old horse? The horse is the central piece. It was on this point that my hon. Friend, was, curiously, misinformed, because, having seized on one point in the Report of the Peppiatt Committee which he could understand, he then proceeded to make the most of it and to suggest that British racing has not been impoverished over the years as the result of foreigners coming into our market to buy our bloodstock. That is an excellent thing if it is a two-way business. It is excellent that the horses that do well here should go abroad. This traffic carries with it prestige and also has a cash nexus. Therefore, it is not altogether a loss. There has, however, been a great impoverishment.
If my hon. Friend wants the figures, perhaps I may remind him that, of the 10 top sires in America for each of the 15 years since 1945, 55 have been British horses. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton that a considerable number of his constituents in Brixton who know a great deal about racing will be shocked to know that he has failed to notice that the departure of Mahmoud, Royal Charger and Nasrullah, to mention only three, has had a profound and permanent effect upon British racing.

Mr. Lipton: My constituents are probably well informed about these lamented departures. They have borne these departures, as others, with their customary fortitude.

Mr. Wigg: I quite agree that they have borne them with their customary fortitude, but not with the same degree of ignorance as is shown by their Member. They will go in their thousands to the Derby next week and they will find that the Derby favourite is a French horse. They will not mind very much that a French horse wins as long as they back the winner. They will also be struck, particularly if the going is hard, that the other five races at Epsom will not be worth going to watch, because there will be a shortage of runners. If this process goes on for many more years, horse racing in this country will descend to the level of what one comes to expect at the smaller meetings. That is a fact which we have to recognise.
My hon. Friend touched on an important point when he tried to make it appear that all racehorse owners are rich men. I am sure that those enthusiasts who go racing in the winter will be astonished to hear that the owners must have an income of£5,000 a year before they start. My hon. Friend completely overlooks that those who sustain National Hunt meetings are small farmers who have one horse each and probably ride them themselves and take them to the meetings themselves. Very often those horses start in the hunting field and go back to the hunting field without any reward at all to the owners.
It would be a great loss if this enthusiasm tended to die, because racing is part of the English scene, and ought to be seen from that angle. It is a very pleasant way of spending time, if one

so desires; one does not have to go if one does not want to. It seems a little odd to me that any hon. Member who sits on these benches should have put the arguments my hon. Friend did, apparently regardless of the needs of his constituents, because when they go racing what they want is straightness.
They want straight racing at reasonable entrance fees and they want the very best racing they can get. They can get it anywhere on the Continent, and increasingly so, but they get it less and less in England. That seems to me wholly undesirable. It seems to me that racing is part of the national habit, and those who like to go will go, and those who do not like to go will not go. However, if we are to have it, it ought to be as good as it possibly can be and it is in our national interest that it should be straight.
One of the things that has happened is that there is a falling of in public morals which poses problems for successive Home Secretaries. The social pattern is set by people who are held up as examples, and if it becomes, as, I am sorry to say, one sometimes is forced to think it has increasingly become, a habit to "ready" horses particularly in the bigger handicaps it can have only a very bad effect. This is something which ought not to be.
If the Home Secretary went for a day to Epsom and talked to people there it would not be long, particularly after a tricky handicap, before he found that the subject of discussion would not be the merits of the horses and the attributes of the horses for that race but whether such and such a horse was trying.
Of course, all sorts of nonsense is talked about this by all sorts of people, because if a man backs a loser he is always likely to put the blame on the jockey and to say that someone has done him down, and so on. I am very much afraid that this has become a habit of mind, which has effects far beyond horse racing, that it is rather clever to fix a horse to bring about a desired result.
What we must never forget is that the person nearest to the horse is the trainer, and if the trainer is not making a living out of training his horses in the return from the fees he gets, what he has got to


do is to make up for it by betting, and once he has to do that he has to get the best price he can for the winner. And this means that horses are readied. The public know that.
I think that that is wholly regrettable on grounds of public policy. It was the basis of my approach to the Betting and Gaming Bill as it is to the Report of the Peppiatt Committee.
Of course, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) has said, the roving camera ought to be standard in this country, and, of course, the watering of courses ought to be universal.
As I have said, I have had the privilege to serve for a short time on the Betting Control Board and I am sure that I speak for my colleagues when I say that its approach to these problems is from the point of view of what is best in the public interest and what is best for racing. I think, therefore, that a Central Board composed, rather like the present Board, of men who take an interest in the sport of racing but who also hold positions in public life which will lead them to take into account the public needs, is the right method of approach to the problem.
I think one of the most important recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee is contained in paragraph 55 of its Report. Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee on the Betting and Gaming Bill will not be surprised to hear me say that, because there I expressed the view that we are going into uncharted waters. The recommendation in paragraph 55 is to give the Board the power to keep its problems under annual review. I think that is the right method of approach.
I turn for a moment to the speech my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) made. He has had to leave the Chamber but he will not mind my referring to him. This suggestion of each racecourse having its own Tote has been discussed, and was discussed in the Standing Committee. I am afraid my colleagues on the Committee got a bit bored with all the talk we had about that. The reason why Birmingham does not want it is that Birmingham is wise enough to see that the present set-up is economical and gives the public

confidence in its operations and also enables Birmingham to take some advantage from the money which is bet off course. Of the£28 million turnover, some£14 million, roughly half, comes from off course. The other thing is a question of simple division. If all the racecourses in this country are to take their share out of it, and there is only so much to share out, it means that the weaker courses will get less and the richer ones will get more, and if that were to happen it would seem to me to be the death of National Hunt racing, particularly at the smaller meetings, and that, I think, would be wholly regrettable.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: This is a very important point. Greyhound racing is sustained very largely, as the hon. Gentleman knows, by the Totalisator which is owned by the operators on course. That works extremely well there. Is it not right that in the long run it may be better in both greyhound racing and horse racing for the Tote to be operated by the racecourses themselves?

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry that that is quite impracticable. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Rees-Davies: I was not expressing a view. I was asking a question.

Mr. Wigg: Then I hope the hon. Member will forgive me. He has overlooked that racecourses like those near London have an average of twenty days' racing a year, whereas dog tracks often have a hundred. It would be very difficult indeed for racecourses to carry the security systems and overheads which the dog tracks are required, by Statute, to carry. On each course there has to be an independent engineer and independent accountant, so that the system is security-proof and the dividends cannot be altered after the results are known. While this is practicable in dog racing, it would be considerably more difficult and would not be practicable in the case of horse racing.
But the overwhelming argument against it is this question of off-course betting. I talked just now about a figure of£28 million. I was wrong. I have looked up the figures. They are£18 million off-course out of£28 million on, and Birmingham and other courses which now get their share would not do so unless the


Tote is operated as at present. It seems to me, therefore, highly desirable that the Tote should continue as it now is.
There is a little more I want to say, because I know other hon. Gentlemen want to speak. I think myself that£1½million is a practical sum to start with. Like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bebington, I am grateful for small mercies. This is a start. If it is possible for more to be given I think it is in the interests not only of racing but of the bookmakers that it should be given.
I certainly do not want to drive the bookmakers off the course. I think they do a very useful job, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey said, in lending colour to the racing scene. I do not think the general public would like them to be driven off, but neither do I think the bookmakers will mind this levy. I think it absolutely right in equity that the off-course bookmaker should make a contribution to the sport, which may be to him a business, the sport by which he lives.
I think the scheme put forward by the Peppiatt Committee is workable and the very fact that it will keep the matter under review will be good in the interests of public morality and will give the House and the Home Secretary confidence in any legislation which may be brought forward.

5.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): The fact that I intervene now in the debate is simply because I have one or two points which I wish to put before the House in a short speech. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends will be able to help me by commenting upon them, because one of the objects of the debate is to air this subject prior to legislation. Therefore, the shorter my speech and the more people can intervene the better.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for referring to the horse, the central figure in our entertainment this afternoon. I am grateful also for his human remarks and for the support which he gave in general to the Peppiatt Report.
I am sure that we are also very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) for using his place in the Ballot. I hope

that we are grateful, too, to the Leader of the House for having provided a certain number of private Members' days at this time of the year. If we had not had the four extra private Members' days we might not have had this debate. Other small tributes from the hon. Member for Dudley I also gladly welcome.
I had always thought that the Betting and Gaming Bill should be accompanied by proposals for a levy and that in tackling betting and gaming—a very difficult subject the burden of which has been taken by my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary—this might be a controversial aspect. I accordingly appointed a Committee, because I was not satisfied that we knew what sort of scheme to put into effect and what measures for it should be put into a Bill.
I am, therefore, greatly obliged to Sir Leslie Peppiatt and the members of his Committee for reporting. I asked them to report in good time and to try to report before the Betting and Gaming Bill became law. They have done that, and I am very much obliged to them. But with all due deference to their Report, I think that we have not yet solved all the problems. That is why I thought that it would be impossible to introduce these measures into the Bill as I had originally hoped. I do not know what will be done in another place, but I am certain that the Commons House of Parliament would desire to comment freely upon all the matters which will be discussed this afternoon. We have, therefore, to take a little more time on the matter and this debate is a preliminary discussion on it.
The fact that the Peppiatt Committee has left us a good many problems does not take away from the excellence and comprehensive nature of its efforts. It will be seen from the list of witnesses in the Appendix that the Committee worked hard and took a good deal of evidence. We have been enabled to have the debate today largely due to the speed with which the Committee has acted and I should like to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary has said, namely, that the Government are disposed to accept the general recommendations of the Report. I should like, however, to have further reactions from hon. Members on several points.
As Byron put it about betting,
…most men (till by losing rendered sager) Will back their own opinions by a wager.
I am sure that that is the position of the hon. Member for Dudley. I had hoped up till now that it was the position of the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) but I am afraid that he has sadly disillusioned many of us by his speech and not least many of his constituents. Few of us become sager in the course of betting. Therefore it is profitable and proper that we should consider how our betting laws can be most properly fashioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley referred to the need to support racing and he brought forward certain statistics which I hope will have been noticed by the House. He has been supported by several other speakers who really know about the subject. I have absolutely no doubt that the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) are correct. My figures do not exactly coincide with his, but my information is that out of a total of 70 racecourses only five have been rebuilt or refashioned since the 1914–18 war. I do not think there is anybody who would contest the proposition that amenities in general need improving drastically, particularly in the cheaper enclosures for ordinary people who wish to enjoy their day's racing.
1 have had an opportunity of discussing this not only with such distinguished people as the stewards of the Jockey Club but also in a modest way in the course of seeing for myself. I am convinced that a great deal can be done to improve racing and support it in general at present. The Peppiatt Committee referred to the manner in which prize money has lagged behind prize money abroad. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), who intervened briefly in the speech of the hon. Member for Brixton, indicated in a perfectly human way from his own experience statistics of which I have had examples in the course of my researches.
Keeping a racehorse today may appear to the public to be a luxury but it is invariably a loss. It is impossible, even in his most friendly mood, to get sufficient back from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make it a profitable undertaking.

Everybody who has tried it knows. If the sport is to go on, further prize money and further encouragement to the raising of bloodstock is vital for this old-fashioned and popular industry in this country. The level of prizes is well known. The Peppiatt Committee in page 10 of its Report talks about breeders' prizes, increasing prize money, improving amenities and subsequently reducing admission charges, a matter to which several hon. Members have referred, to which the proceeds of a levy like the one proposed might be turned. It is precisely these objectives which are so important at present.
Before the debate I could not help turning to my Surtees which is almost inevitable for those who speak on an occasion such as this. He makes one of his characters say that there are three things which, in order of merit, he would protect. The first, as would also the hon. Member for Dudley, is his horse. The second is his wife, and the third his name. The Peppiatt Committee and, I hope, the House have such a man in mind. If we agree with this proposal, his horse will be protected by providing higher prize money, his wife by improving the amenities, and his name by protecting the reputation of British horses and bloodstock throughout the world.
I hope, therefore, that generally the House will be with us in giving a blessing to the Report prior to more detailed legislation which will be necessary. It is important that it should go out to the outside world—and it has not been made clear in any speech so far—that the proposed levy is designed to benefit the general sport and industry of racing and the amenities of the public, and, through racing, the racing public and is not a subsidy in any sense to any individual owners.
I say that only to emphasise it for outside consumption, because I should not like anybody to think that we are adopting any proposal to transfer public money from one section of the public to another or that we are doing anything which is particularly unorthodox. In this connection, it is sometimes thought that it is wrong and unorthodox and contrary to our fiscal system to have a levy of this kind, but it will be seen from paragraph 22 of the Peppiatt Report that there are precedents.
The Report names, for example,
…the levy on cinema takings for the benefit of British film production; the sugar surcharge mechanism; the levy on the cotton industry; and the levy payments under Agricultural Marketing Schemes.
The Report goes on to say that
None of these provides an exact analogy to what would be necessary…but they serve to establish precedents for a statutory levy within a particular industry.

Mr. Albert Roberts: What about the football pools?

Mr. Butler: I am dealing only with the precedents mentioned in the Report.
We are not taking any dramatic step or any step different from what has been done before, nor are we doing anything to subsidise individual cases. We are copying what happens already with the Tote, which pays what amounts to a levy by way of contributions from its surplus both to racecourses and otherwise for the benefit of racing.
I hope that many of those, like the hon. Member for Dudley and others in the House, like Mr. Tom Williams, who was a Member of the House, and Sir Thomas Dugdale, now Lord Crathorne, who took great interest in racing, will do their best on this occasion to help us to frame plans for a scheme on these lines.
After all, it is a bit according to our tradition, because I think Disraeli's greatest biography was about Lord William Bentinck. Lord William Bentinck was a very good leader of the Tory Party, but he got into great difficulty over the sugar tax and he had to be briefed by Disraeli, just like the hon. Member for Dudley has to brief the hon. Member for Brixton, whenever he spoke to any great effect. It is to be remembered that according to that immortal biography, possibly one of Disraeli's best bits of writing, Lord Bentinck used to enter the Division Lobby in a scarlet coat and top boots, and he very often voted in that peculiar condition.
We are therefore following up today in the sport of racing, what the hon. Member for Dudley referred to as "clean and straight racing", something that is vital to the English character and important to us today.
Those are the general remarks that I wanted to make and I now want to refer to one or two detailed points upon which I hope speakers in the remaining considerable time which we have for this debate will perhaps make one or two comments, that is, the precise method of collecting the levy or the machinery required. We must also, of course, before we take a decision, consider any views held by other than racing interests.
It is my present intention to go forward with a scheme for a levy. The first point that arises is what should be the basis of the levy. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley said that he would prefer a levy on turnover rather than a levy on profits. Of course, before we appointed the Peppiatt Committee one thought that we might put something in the Betting and Gaming Bill. We had a very difficult choice before us. Should it be on turnover, on profits, on the number of telephones or on the number of staff employed, etc.? Were we to spread the impost over a man who bet on horses, a person who dealt with dogs, and there were other undefined difficulties.
Having appointed a Committee of experts, in so far as we were able to find them, I am inclined to accept their Report that this had better be levied on profits. I think that a levy on turnover would be more inexact. An alternative levy on backers or punters, of which this is an indirect example, would be found to be more difficult.
I am bound to say that I agree with the conclusion of the Committee and so I shall prepare the Bill, unless I am corrected in the course of this debate or in the weeks or months that lie ahead, on the basis of a levy on profits. Again, I am interested to hear what others have to say.
Now about the boards. One or two examples have been given. Those who have spoken have referred to the constitution of the boards, but under the Peppiatt Report there is to be a Central Board responsible for the proper functioning of the whole scheme. It is this Board which is going to administer the central fund. It is going to draw up proposals for the amount of the levy and to decide with the assistance of the Bookmakers' Levy Board how the levy is to be collected.
In this connection I should like to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley who asked whether we could not revert to the original figure of£3 million. That has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), in his stout and loyal support of the bookmakers—which I should like to endorse, because without them where should we be?—thought that£1¼million was good enough to levy from the bookmakers. I am inclined to agree with him and to think that it is sufficient.
I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and to others who raised the matter, including the hon. Member for Dudley, that this is essentially a matter which will, as far as I am advised at present, not be in the Bill. It will be a matter for the Central Board and the Bookmakers' Levy Board, and I do not think that in our debate today we need definitely decide what the final sum should be. I do not wish to lay down in the Statute what the exact amount of the levy will be.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill must lay down some maximum as to what powers the Central Board should have?

Mr. Rees-Davies: I will, if I may, put this point to my right hon. Friend at the same time. Having regard to the future, in which the values of money, and indeed, money as a whole may change, and the consideration of what hon. Gentlemen have said with regard to the possibility of a larger sum at a later date, would it not be right to leave any question as to quantum not clearly defined in the Bill?

Mr. Butler: I have indicated my view that the Peppiatt Report proposes a reasonable system, and I think that the views of the hon. Member for Bermondsey should be borne in mind. I do not see how we could put a maximum in the Bill. As the object of this debate is to air these difficulties and as the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) may be taking part in the debate, perhaps he could then say what he has in mind. As far as the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet Mr. Rees-Davies) is concerned, I am more inclined to leave it to the

boards, particularly the Central Board, owing to the variation, as he says, and owing to the importance of seeing that the levy is fair and is accepted as fair by the Bookmakers' Levy Board.
It will be for the Central Board—this was raised by the hon. Member for Dudley—to conduct a yearly review of the scheme and to distribute money from the central fund. In fact, the successful operation of the scheme depends on the Central Board and we must be careful to ensure that its constitution and composition are such as to enable it to carry out its duties properly.
There are two views on the composition of the Central Board. The first is that favoured by the Peppiatt Committee, namely, that the Board shall be small in number and composed of persons who, while generally concerned with racing, such as representatives of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee, are not recipients of the levy. That is the first point, I think. This will, in effect, constitute a set of impartial intermediaries and it will be for the potential recipients, those people I referred to from page 10 of the Report, to appear before the Board and make their case for the appropriate grant. That is the conception of the small board.
The alternative view which has been pressed upon me by various racing interests derives from the present constitution of the Racecourse Betting Control Board. When that Board was set up in 1928 wide representation was given to the then racing interests, and it has been suggested to me that the new Central Board should also be widely representative of the possible recipients of the levy.
I have not come to a final conclusion on either, but I do not think I can give quite the same width of representation to the Central Board as was given to the Racecourse Betting Control Board in 1928. However, I shall be prepared to listen to other ideas put forward in the debate. Again, should the Central Board include an element, and if so how large an element, entirely independent of racing, that is, an element independent to judge like we would sometimes have in the Wages Board?
Another question is the composition of the new Tote Board. If the Peppiatt


Committee proposals are accepted, the functions of distribution at present undertaken by the Racecourse Betting Control Board will pass to the new Central Board. This will mean that the Tote Board will merely be responsible for operating totalisators on the course and any off-the-course tote facilities which may be provided as a result of the provisions of the new Bill.
It seems to follow, therefore, that the widely representative composition of the Control Board is no longer appropriate and it is for consideration what its composition should now be. The idea that appeals to me at the moment is that the new Tote Board should be small in number. I think this will probably prevail in the first draft of the Bill. It should not be representative of particular interests, and should, if possible combine general business ability with knowledge of and interest in racing matters. I think that is easier to decide immediately than the Central Board.
There is also the problem of the relationship of the proposed Boards with each other. It is not sufficient merely to set them up. It is also necessary to define their relationship. For example, is each Board to be independent with separate functions; or should the Tote and Bookmakers' Levy Boards, proposed in the Peppiatt Report, be subordinate boards reporting to the Central Board on all matters of policy? Should the Chairmen of the Bookmakers' Levy Board and the Tote Board be members of the Central Board? On these matters I have not yet come to a final conclusion, except that I think some link-up may be necessary.
As I said earlier, to say that a final scheme has emerged is not so. There is a lot of work still to be done. That is why I am grateful to my hon. Friend for airing the subject. This is really the answer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott), who took part in our debate and asked some very pertinent questions about the Boards, including the Central Board. I should value a further conversation with him before the final drafting of the Bill takes place. I have also noticed his questions about further narrowing the bands of bookmakers, which he raised in his speech.
So much for one or two of the questions. I have practically no more to say except on the question of tax and on that the following is my understanding of the position.
The Peppiatt Committee deliberately refrained from commenting on the tax position since this was a matter which was for the Government. It did not feel that it could properly attempt to anticipate the Government's decision. Broadly, however, after consulting my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, it appears that if such a scheme as that proposed in the Report were introduced, the levy on bookmakers would, I am advised, be allowable as an expense in computing a bookmaker's profit for tax purposes.
As for the Tote Board, a levy on amounts staked would similarly be allowable, and that creates an equality of treatment which before this was not likely, and I think that is an improvement. In both cases the levy would be made to fall before tax and not after.
The tax treatment in the hands of the recipients is also important—that is, recipients of grants from the central fund —and that would depend on the circumstances. In the hands of a person carrying on a trade, for example—that is, a racecourse owner—a grant earmarked for revenue expenditure would be brought in as a trading receipt; a grant earmarked for capital expenditure would not. That is how I am advised, and I thought that the House ought to know. In other words, the taxation position would depend upon the outlay which the grant was intended to meet. and I think that is fair.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Has my right hon. Friend made an estimate, on the basis of the levy being allowable for tax, of how much of this is, therefore, simply a Government grant financed out of diminution of the Revenue?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir; I have made no such calculation. It is a point which I expected to meet during the course of discussion in the House. I cannot give any such estimate today.
Those are the main points which I wanted to put before the House in the course of this airing debate, and in order that there shall be no ambiguity I need


only repeat that it is my intention to proceed with legislation in time for the timetable in the Appendix.
Several hon. Members have asked—my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley first dealt with the point—whether the timetable need be so delayed. I am advised that the reason for the delays and the reference to the year 1962 arises from the delay in registering bookmakers, and that it may be difficult to bring in the scheme before then. However, I am advised that it would not be impossible—that is the result of my investigations since my hon. Friend spoke, and so I have not had time to go into it thoroughly—but all I can undertake today is that we shall have the least possible delay—I cannot go into more detail than that—subject, I hope, subject to the proper registration of bookmakers.

Mr. A. Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman made much of a quotation about a man protecting his horse, his wife and his good name. I would protect my dog. A moment ago the right hon. Gentleman said that he was trying to get more or less the opinions of the House about the Report. I think that in a spirit of equity and to clear up the whole issue he should take into consideration greyhound racing, and not leave it, when it may well be forgotten, because I regard greyhound racing as just as attractive as horse racing.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman has made a very astute intervention. I thought he said that he would protect his "job". I realise now that he said he would protect his dog. The Report does not deal with greyhound racing, and I should not like to make any observations on that subject today. However, if we could have a discussion on this matter I might either consider it as a separate matter or, at any rate, give it the benefit of my attention. I should be glad to be taught by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) how to treat his dog in a proper way. Today we are dealing with horse racing and with a Report on horse racing, and the Report does not include—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would develop that point. There was a good deal of smiling and laughing behind him while he was making his remarks. I

agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts). There are thousands of people who believe that greyhound racing should be treated on the same basis as horse racing. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would consider the matter. Would he be willing to meet a deputation of hon. Members who are interested in the subject so that they may discuss this with him to ascertain whether—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. I am afraid that that subject is not connected with the Motion which is before the House.

Mr. Lewis: No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be prepared to discuss this subject and I am now asking him whether he would be prepared to go one step further and meet a deputation of hon. Members who are interested in the subject and discuss the matter further.

Mr. Butler: I think that that would be by far the most businesslike way of doing it. Then hon. Members who are interested in this aspect—it is obvious that there are a great many of them—would be able to put directly before me or my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend what they feel on this matter.

Mr. Lewis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Butler: I would conclude by saying that I do not know what will happen in another place, but perhaps I may take it that it is the mood of the House that, as there are so many points to consider, this is a matter which cannot be hurried and which cannot be inserted in the present Bill because of the complexity of the subject. Therefore, we shall have to find a special vehicle for it. That means a Bill of its own, and that Bill will have to be considered by both Houses in the normal way. That will give us an opportunity of getting the legislation satisfactorily bound up before we proceed with the matter.
In general, I hope that the debate will show the keenness of the House to support one of our most ancient and traditional occupations, one which gives a great deal of pleasure to many people and one which, if properly conducted and properly supported, enhances the name of this country.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am sure that hon. Members who have been present during the debate will agree that we must now add to the thanks that we offer to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) for originating the debate our thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for having indicated the way in which his mind is beginning to work on this subject.
We must be quite certain that we are today discussing something which marks a very considerable departure from the general attitude of the House towards this subject in days gone by, and that the Home Secretary, in the line that he has taken, has been accepting on behalf of his office responsibilities which will be increasingly heavy as the years go on.
I think that on general lines the Peppiatt Committee was not very far out in the recommendations which it made with regard to the subjects with which it dealt, but the great thing remaining is the question of the machinery by which the Report is to be operated. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman has not made up his own mind there, and when we get the Bill, as he has indicated, there will be a great many details that will need very considerable thought on the part of Members of the House who may take part in the discussions that emerge.
I suffered a domestic disaster on Friday evening. My television set broke down so I tuned in to the Home Service on the radio. The first question that I heard put in a programme called "Any Questions" was one that asked what the panel thought of the outbreak of violence which has been so noticeable in the country lately. The first person to give an answer was the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), who I am glad to see in his place, because I have not been able to give him notice that I intended to allude to what he said. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will get a transcript of that answer, because, for the second time in the short period during which we have been associated as Members of this House, I found myself in agreement with what the hon. Member said. The first thing he said was that we must bear in

mind the Street Offences Act, and the way in which shifting certain things off the streets has landed them somewhere else.
Let us be in no doubt that we are engaged in a similar dangerous course in this matter also, and during the Betting and Gaming Bill discussions in Committee we had many speeches—from two or three Members at the most, but many speeches—which indicated that they thought that this scheme should be operated by the bookmakers. I say frankly that I do not share the great admiration that my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has for bookmakers.
I have had to see them in Epsom all my life. I have seen them change, from the time when they came down and spent the whole of Derby week in Epsom, to their appearance now in motor cars, bringing their clerks with them, returning to London or elsewhere for the evening, and coming back again next morning. We are making a very considerable social change in considering the Peppiatt Committee Report, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that the persons appointed to the various boards to deal with this subject are persons whose personal integrity and whose lack of risk of being made the objective of pressure from bookmakers will be the first concern that he will have.
If the Home Secretary and the State are to be brought into this matter, we must be quite certain that the whole of the machinery is operated by people who are above suspicion and against whom there can be no accusation that they have been animated by one particular interest or another. I regard that as being the first thing that must be secured, no matter how the details are worked out. On that point, I do not differ very much from what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said in his remarks.
Recently, one of my hon. Friends received a letter from the bookmakers in his constituency, and, not being a person who frequents their company very much, he handed the letter over to me and asked me to deal with it. I put them off as well as I could—I gather that that was what the job was given to me for—but on 18th May they wrote to me. Their letter was


headed "The Peppiatt Committee Report," and went on:
Having studied the above Report and its implications we should like to state our views.
The terms of reference of the Committee were sound but the composition of this body appears to have had no regard for the small Bookmaker from whom the Committee suggest they will obtain 87 per cent. of their levy and who have no desire to become members of the National Bookmakers Protection Association and Associated Bodies. Thus the Committee have been deprived of the voice and knowledge of a large percentage of the Trade and we can only view the Report as being heavily biased in favour of the N.B.P.A.
The principle of one section of a community or business subsidising a private profit making concern has yet to be established. This could create a precedent which if logically continued could lead to other businesses calling upon attendant trades to subsidise them. We do not think that this is the policy of this Government in general and would welcome your comments.
Who am I to comment on the policies of this Government in general? If I sent my comments on that matter through the post and my letter were opened, the probable result would be that I would be prosecuted. Therefore, I do not propose to make any comments on that general principle. But I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that the Betting and Gaming Bill, as it stands, imposes a very heavy disability on the kind of people who wrote that letter. He does not know what another place will do about the Peppiatt Committee's Report. I hope that this House would very much resent a proposal to set an impost on a section of the community, as the implementation of this Report would do, if that impost originated in another place, which some irreverent people think is an assembly that might almost be regarded as an extension of the Jockey Club.
If this impost is to be proposed at all, it should be proposed in this House and we should take the responsibility of formulating it here. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that in this matter, unless we are very careful, we shall set up a great vested interest which may be very difficult to control in future. We have seen that happen in the small matter—as it appeared years ago—of the legalisation of the football pools. No one imagined then that they would ever grow into being the great vested interest of today.
I know one social worker who investigated conditions on Tyneside during the period of depression. He said that the growth of the football pools there, and of their power, was due to the fact that at the time when most humble men had very few opportunities of making decisions of their own because of unemployment, and all their decisions were really made for them by the limited amount of unemployment pay, the pools grew because once a week men could make a decision on matters, and stake a very small sum on the possibility of their having made the right decision.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley pointed out several times when we were in Committee on the Betting and Gaming Bill, that is one of the attractions of gambling on horses. People make a decision by which they are bound and, in a society in which humble people make fewer and fewer decisions, in making a bet they are left to take an initiative and that is an opportunity which they seize.
The right hon. Gentleman's policy in these social matters, which we understand to be now two-thirds of the way towards completion—there is to be another Bill next Session dealing with liquor licensing laws—is making great changes in the social set-up of this country. We have to be very careful that we do not see what I regard as the worst defects of the Street Offences Act being brought into those other things, with unscrupulous people just as willing to exploit those defects as they have been in those instances in which the right hon. Gentleman's decisions have already become law.
I join with the right hon. Gentleman in hoping that this Report will lead to the benefit of racing. My fear is that in trying to do that we may give a comparatively small section of the community opportunities for creating a new vested interest which will be inimical to the public interest unless the boards controlling this new venture are carefully chosen. For those reasons, I shall carefully study any proposals which the right hon. Gentleman makes in any Measure which he brings forward. I hope that he will be able to do what ought to be done, to secure money for the improvement of racing in the various aspects which have been discussed, without creating a new vested interest, which,


whatever benefit may accrue to racing, might seriously injure the country's social structure.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Richard Stanley: I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). It was nice to hear him say that he intended to support the idea of this levy if it is imposed solely to help the sport of racing. It appears that he and my right hon. Friend are looking in exactly the same direction, on this occasion anyhow, so it must be the right direction.
I very much agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the need for a strong chairman of the Central Board. To start with, at any rate, he should be a full-time chairman. It sounds as though all he will have to do is to distribute a little money, but in fact his work will consist of much more than that. It will be very far-reaching and he should be a full-time chairman to deal with it.
Both my right hon. Friend and the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) went out of their way to say that they thought that a levy would help to keep racing honest. Many people say that dishonest things happen in racing. For my sins, I sometimes have to sit as a judge and sometimes act as a spy and try to find them out. However, when it comes down to the facts, I think that very few people cheat, although obviously, one or two do. If we can get more money into the sport. I am certain that cheating will be done away with.
I welcome the Report because it recommends that off-the-course bookmakers should make a contribution to the sport. All bookmakers make a good living out of the sport and off-the-course bookmakers put nothing back while their colleagues on the course contribute a reasonable sum. If we do not have a contribution from off-the-course bookmakers, English racing will become more and more expensive and more and more uncomfortable compared with the sport in other countries. The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) spoke of breeding and that said that it was not doing badly. My advice to him is to look at the first twelve fancied horses for this year's Derby. English racing must have gone down the slope a little quicker than

we thought, because only two of those horses are English.
My right hon. Friend spoke about the set-up of the Central Board. The Board ought not to be very big. It should have a full-time chairman and four other members. I do not want a donor or a beneficiary of the levy to be on the Board, which should consist of a member of the Jockey Club and a member of the National Hunt Committee and two other members appointed by Government Departments. That would make the Board big enough to administer the levy and it could call in any expert advice required.
I am pleased that there is to be a yearly review. No one can possibly foretell what sort of money should go to racing. Those who gave evidence before the Peppiatt Committee made something of a cock-shy and made calculations which no one would dream of saying were accurate. If the Board feels that racing deserves more money, I hope that it will get it, but if the Board says that the amount contributed is sufficient, we will be able to keep it at that figure.
I am also pleased that the money is not to be taxed. One or two of my hon. Friends might have something to say about that proposal. However, if we have a contribution from bookmakers, it will be silly if part of it is given to the Treasury. That has happened with the old Tote Board. I gather that when it was set up, the contribution was meant not to incur tax, but the Tote lost its case in the House of Lords and for the last eighteen months has had to pay tax as it had done in the past.
I do not agree with the Peppiatt Committee's basis for levying the money. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) that the levy should not be based on profits. One well-known bookmaker was heard to say, "Of course I have profits, but they are never shown." Most of these people are very clever and their profits can be hidden in the profits of other businesses. I would prefer to see turnover used as the basis of the levy and I am sure that the set-up should be decided by the bookmakers themselves, because they would


know of the artful dodges better than anyone, and even better than the Treasury. They should be told how much money is required, and then should be left to arrange how to raise it.
When my right hon. Friend sets up the new Board I hope that he will pay attention to some of the things that were said during the Second Reading of the Betting and Gaming Bill. There ought to be a full-time chairman. I dare say that there might be a smaller Board. If there is, I hope that it will not consist only of racing people. The Board ought to consist of equal numbers of racing people and people from outside, and there ought not to be a beneficiary of the racecourse on the Board, just as there ought not to be any breeders on it. A full-time chairman is essential if the Tote is to profit from having betting shops.
I gave evidence before the Peppiatt Committee on the question of breeding. At first sight it looks as though the Report has been generous and given us what we asked for, but I went into it in more detail. I discovered what the Tote used to give for improving bloodstock. That money will not now be paid. The Tote used to give about£35,000 for light horses and pony breeding. For heavy horses it gave£6,000. For veterinary science it gave£21,000, and for charities to do with horses another£10,000 was paid. If my mathematics are correct£73,850 was paid before the breeders received anything.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay attention to this, because it means that we shall not be able to give any money to the National Stud to stop animals going abroad, and certainly nothing to improve British bloodstock. British breeders maintain that we must produce horses that can go for a mile, a mile and a half, or two miles, and we must give prizes to encourage the breeding of horses capable of running such distances.
It will probably be asked why we should help breeders when exports from this country are pretty big. Inquiries from three leading agencies which export bloodstock show that their export figures cover horses for races of a mile and a quarter or more. Such horses make up 90 per cent. of their exports, particularly to the dollar areas. The total export of

horses brings in about£2 million a year. It is therefore important that we should cater for this branch of the business.
Many hon. Members have said that it is important to install ciné-cameras to see if cheating occurs. I know that there is not a lot of cheating on English racecourses, but the installation of a ciné-camera would help everyone who placed a bet, and would help to produce fair results.
The installation of a photo-finish camera would also be of great assistance. We are about the only country which does not have a photo-finish camera on every racecourse, and there are few jumping courses that have one. One has to leave it to the human eye to decide whether hundreds of thousands of pounds shall change hands as a result of a race.
If racecourses are to have good new stands one hopes that more people will go to the races. The racecourse owners will therefore make bigger profits, and if they do so we must ensure that the money is returned to racing, and thus to the benefit of the sport.
It has become fashionable in the City of London for take-over bids to be made. Now the racecourses are suffering, sometimes by speculative dealers and sometimes by Ministry of Transport prospective buyers. We must ensure that any money lent to racecourse owners is paid back to the Board if the racecourse is taken over within, say, 10 to 15 years, otherwise the money will have been poured down the drain.
I am pleased that we are to have this levy to help racing. It is not just to help some rich racehorse owners; it is to help the sport of racing, and every one connected with it.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The House will appreciate the fact that the Home Secretary intervened when he did and gave the House the benefit of his views, both in respect of those matters on which he had already reached some definite conclusion, and in respect of these matters on which he still had an open mind and on which he invited contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The Opposition regard this as a nonparty matter. Just as no Opposition


Whips were put on at any stage of the Betting and Gaming Bill, so in regard to our discussions on the Peppiatt Report, and anything that may flow from it, the Opposition's view is that there should be a free vote by Members on this side of the House and, should there be a Division as a result of this Motion, hon. Members on this side of the House will be free to vote as they think fit.
We regard the debate and the proposal for a levy as part and parcel of the Betting and Gaming Bill, and I should like to make a few observations on three matters: first, the timetable, on which the Home Secretary invited comments; secondly, on the principle of this levy; and, thirdly, on the matters of detail on which the Home Secretary said that he still had an open mind.
I have said before that it is perhaps a little unfortunate that the Home Secretary did not set up the Peppiatt Committee earlier. I do not think that his timing of the matter has been particularly happy. A great deal of legislative time would have been saved if the Committee had been set up six months earlier and if its recommendations had been available when the House considered the Betting and Gaming Bill on Second Reading; and, perhaps more particularly, when it was considered in Committee upstairs. If that had been done we would have avoided considerable duplication of debate, and it would have enabled hon. Members to have seen the whole subject, both as regards the legislation of betting offices and the levy, in a better perspective.
It has become clear that a levy on bookmakers for the purpose of subsidising horse racing becomes a practical possibility only if one has a system of registering bookmakers and having effective control over them. Such a system of registration and control will be possible under the Betting and Gaming Bill. It is fair to point out that if the Peppiatt Committee had been set up earlier and if it had reported in the sense in which it has reported, before the Bill was introduced, it would have been apparent to every hon. Member, which was concealed until recently, that the most potent argument in persuading the House of Commons to legalise betting shops was in order to set up a

system for the registration of bookmakers so that a levy could be raised on their takings for the benefit of racecourse owners and race horse owners.
It is no secret that the Home Secretary has been under considerable pressure on this subject from the Jockey Club and other vested interests. It is no secret because Lord Sefton, the senior steward of the Jockey Club, made it plain in a speech at the end of 1958—a year before the Betting and Gaming Bill was introduced—that the support of the stewards of the Jockey Club for a Betting and Gaming Bill would be forthcoming only if there was provision for a levy, because, he said, it was essential that money bet on horse racing should contribute to horse racing. We must remember that the price paid for the support of the Jockey Club for the proposal to license and legalise betting shops was the promise to introduce the levy.
I am not saying that the proposed levy is wrong merely because it was instigated by the Jockey Club, but it is essential that the House should consider whether the proposal for a levy corresponds with the public interest as well as with vested interests. Various hon. Members have pointed out that in certain sections of the Peppiatt Committee's proposals for a levy its enthusiasm is lukewarm, to say the least. Therefore, although on the balance of the arguments presented by the Peppiatt Committee I support its conclusion that there should be a levy, I would also say that the Home Secretary is right in deciding that the machinery for setting up the levy should be the subject matter of a separate Bill.
The Home Secretary was a little modest when he said that he could not tell what would happen in another place by way of Amendments to the Betting and Gaming Bill. It is obvious that he is in complete command of the position in that respect and can decide whether or not the machinery should be introduced in another place. But this debate has at any rate shown that the problems arising out of the introduction of the levy are so complex that they could not possibly be fitted into the framework of the Betting and Gaming Bill which has been passed by this House and is shortly to be considered in another place.
I have said that on balance, notwithstanding the rather hesitating remarks made in paragraph 19 of the Peppiatt Committee Report, and also its statement in paragraph 54 that it does not think
that the needs of the industry are so pressing that the delay should have a serious effect",
the conclusion is inevitable that, subject to a few safeguards which I shall indicate, a levy is desirable.
We must not exaggerate the arguments put forward by some hon. Members. There is no doubt that the levy will be of some value to the export trade, in the export of bloodstock, but the most optimistic estimates of the value of these exports is only£2½million a year, which is trifling when compared with the volume of our total exports. As to the amount of the levy, the Committee was correct in rejecting the argument of the Jockey Club that as much as£3 million was required. I would have thought that a figure of£1 million or£1¼million was much more appropriate.
I was a little startled to hear the Home Secretary suggest that the amount would probably be left completely at large in any legislation which the House is invited to pass. I would have thought it a most serious precedent to suggest that this House, by Statute, should give permission to a private body to impose an unlimited levy upon a section of the community. Surely that is not right. On reflection, the Home Secretary must realise that the House should be in complete control of any body of private individuals in the matter of the amount which that body can extract, by statutory levy, from any section of the community.
Although a levy is justified in the special circumstances of this case, the House must realise that it is contrary to our fiscal arrangements to levy a special tax on a special class of taxpayers for special purposes. It could well be argued that if any sport which is regarded as of such national importance as to justify a subsidy cannot support itself financially, that subsidy should be raised in the normal way. The House should always bear that principle in mind.
The Home Secretary has sought to tell us that the proposed levy is not creating a precedent. Some precedents are re-

ferred to in paragraph 22 of the Report, but that paragraph points out that none of those precedents provides an exact analogy. The levy payments under the agricultural marketing schemes are of a totally different character, and perhaps the nearest analogy is the levy on cinema takings. But even that is not an exact analogy. If we eventually adopt the principle recommended by the Committee and sanction a statutory levy, we must realise that we are introducing a departure from all existing precedents, and that each new precedent must be carefully scrutinised by the House.
The danger is that if money taken from bookmakers is given to the horse racing and horse breeding industries, the organisers of other sports feeling financial pressure may well encourage or permit betting in relation to their sports and then ask for a contribution to be made from such betting. If football clubs run into financial difficulties, will they be entitled to approach Parliament with a view to obtaining a statutory contribution from the football pool promoters? Unless we are careful we shall find ourselves on a slippery slope.
There are certain advantages to be gained by the proposed levy. One is that it will enable the House and the public to obtain much-needed information about the volume of betting in this country. The Peppiatt Committee, in more than one part of its Report, indicates the absence of any reliable evidence on that score. This is a matter of special interest not merely to those concerned with betting and gambling but—from a social point of view—to the whole community, including those who never indulge in betting.
The Home Secretary has invited comments on certain details of the proposed levy, especially with regard to the method of collection, the constitution of boards, and the distribution of proceeds. Although I am conscious of the defects inherent in any scheme adopted, I would prefer the method suggested by the Peppiatt Committee, namely, that it should be a levy on profits rather than a levy calculated on turnover, the number of telephones operated, or the size of the staff. Difficulties are involved in any scheme. If there is to be any abuse it will arise whatever form the levy takes. I think we should accept the advice of the specialists on the Committee who


investigated the various alternatives and recommended a levy on profits. I would have thought it desirable to have a provision in the scheme for the accounts of the bookmakers to be audited and also verified by an independent auditor.
It is essential and desirable that the two Boards and their functions should be quite separate and distinct. The Bookmakers' Levy Board should be responsible for its own domestic problems in the collection of the levy from its members and the Central Board, responsible for distributing the levy, should be a small, independent and powerful body. Certainly the Board should be divorced from the interests of those who will benefit from the levy. I do not think it equally essential that the donors should be represented on the Board, but the paramount consideration is that this Board, preferably under a full-time chairman of recognised stature, should be such as to inspire confidence in the racing community and in the general public.
I hope that further thought will be given to the precise powers to be given to the Board regarding the maximum amount it can decide should be claimed year by year. The Home Secretary acknowledged—other hon. Members have referred to it—that one of the merits of this scheme is that it provides for an annual review and therefore it will contain the maximum flexibility and elasticity. Nevertheless, I think control must be retained over the total volume of the levy which the Board should be authorised to collect year by year.
In the Report of the Peppiatt Committee it is suggested that the Home Secretary should have power to propound a scheme. I hope that it will be found possible to schedule the proposed scheme to the text of the Bill and not leave the matter completely vague so that a scheme may subsequently be introduced by a Statutory Instrument under the powers contained in the Bill. It would be much more satisfactory if, at the time when the Bill is introduced, we knew the kind of scheme which the Home Secretary has in mind. I support the suggestion that the chairman of the Bookmakers' Levy Board should be a member of the Central Board. That would provide just the right amount of

liaison and cohesion between the two boards.
I appreciate and support the desirability of a large part of the levy being used for the improvement and the increasing of racecourse amenities and perhaps facilitating a reduction in the price of admission for the public. It is also desirable that a substantial part of the levy be devoted to increasing the prizes for races and thereby giving that amount of encouragment to race horse owners and relieving them, for the time being, of the contribution they make at present.
I observed that the Home Secretary failed to mention something which I wish to stress, that a substantial part of the proceeds of the levy be devoted to the cause of veterinary science and research. The Home Secretary did not mention that as one of the objectives, although it is one which prompted the Peppiatt Committee to recommend a levy. Veterinary science and research has been neglected and it is desirable that the importance of this should be recognised statutorily by the application of money in that way. I echo what the Home Secretary said in his speech. I hope that this debate will have served a useful purpose in enabling the right hon. Gentleman to frame proposals which will prove broadly acceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In the few minutes during which I shall detain the House I wish to refer to the manner and not to the matter of what is proposed in the Report of the Peppiatt Committee. Nevertheless, the manner of what is proposed could be of considerable importance, and I found myself sharing the anxieties on this score which were expressed by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher).
This House has decided that for reasons of public policy and good order no one shall be allowed to ply the trade of a bookmaker without a permit. The suggestion in the Peppiatt Report is that it should be a condition of obtaining or retaining a permit that the holder pays a substantial sum, far in excess of the cost of issuing and registering the permit. In effect, that is a tax imposed by the authority of this House. This will be seen


very clearly if one takes the close analogy of the Motor Vehicle Licence Duty. No one is allowed to use a motor vehicle on the road unless the vehicle is licensed; but to obtain a licence an applicant has to pay a sum which brings in—and is intended to bring in—vastly more than the cost of administering the licensing system.
In this case, however, the tax is to be assessed and levied by a special body, the Levy Board, and is to be applied to a specific purpose by another special body, the Central Board. It is, therefore, an assigned revenue, that is, revenue designated in advance for a specific purpose or application; it is, moreover, a revenue which is both raised and applied otherwise than under the direct control and authority of this House. That is a departure from what I might call the principle of the Consolidated Fund, upon which the public control of finance by this House basically rests—the principle that all revenue which is raised by the authority of this House shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund and that all payments which are made by the authority of this House shall be made out of the Consolidated Fund.
It is no part of my purpose to consider whether bookmaking is a suitable subject for a duty, for a tax, nor is it any part of my purpose to consider whether it is justifiable that racing should be subsidised, that is, that all the various hobbies, sports and trades which are comprehended under the term "racing" should receive moneys which they cannot voluntarily attract—though I must say, in passing, that it seems to me it would be extraordinarily difficult to establish any logical case for such a subsidy.
If, however, those two questions—whether bookmaking is a suitable subject for taxation, and whether racing is a suitable subject for subsidy—are answered in the affirmative, then I say that the revenue ought to be raised in the proper way and in the ordinary fashion, as under the authority of this House, and that the payments ought to be made in the ordinary and proper way upon a Vote of this House year by year.
I know that there are precedents, of a kind, for what is proposed, although, when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reminded the House of the collection of precedents to be found in paragraph 22 of the Report, I thought them a

rather grisly collection. But there are precedents for all the errors to which humanity is prone—of course there are —and the mere existence of a precedent for doing something of this kind is no argument in its favour.

Mr. R. A. Butler: What would the view of my hon. Friend be about the levy which the Tote Board exacts and then provides for the benefit of racing?

Mr. Powell: That seems to me basically different, although, even if it were the same, I should still be saying every word I am saying this afternoon.
It seems that what has happened there is that Parliament has authorised a kind of monopoly and has made it a condition of authorising it that the returns to that monopoly should be applied in a particular way. So I think that there is a big distinction there, although I do not believe that, even if there were a precedent, its existence justifies us in departing from the basic principle of the Consolidated Fund.
There is an extra reason why we should be particularly hesitant about doing so just now. This is a time when all sorts of private interests, trades and concerns—no doubt, each for the very best reasons in the world—are pressing their claims upon the revenues and moneys which this House raises, or allows to be raised. Therefore, at this time, above all others, I think that we should hold fast to the normal principles of public finance. If we are to tax bookmaking, we should tax it openly; if we are to subsidise racing, we should subsidise it openly; and we should do both in the proper way.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I am rather surprised that, as the shades lengthen outside, the shades of doubt seem to be creeping in on this Report of the Peppiatt Committee and its proposals for a levy.
Of course, there are many precedents outside this country of levies to assist racing. They are not only in France, America, New Zealand and many other countries, but there are precedents in this country for the assistance of one type of industry by another. I have in mind the scrap levy which was in operation for many years, by which scrap merchants kept down the price of scrap. That was


a case in which, before, during and after the war, one part of the steel industry assisted another.
If this House agrees that there should be some sort of assistance to racing, I should not like it to come out of the pockets of the taxpayer, but out of one part of the racing industry which is dependent on racing. I do not look at the matter from a specialist point of view, but I occasionally go to race meetings. On the borders of my constituency there are racecourses at Hurst Park and Kempton Park.
When I looked at the provisions of the Peppiatt Report I was very much struck to see how much assistance comes from betting to racing in other parts of the world. In New Zealand, there is the Totalisator Agency Board, which raises no less than£600,000 a year. It gives£52,000 to the Auckland Racing Club,£21,000 to the Auckland Trotting Club and£19,000 to the Hawke's Bay Racing Club, and so on. So here we are not doing anything at all unusual. On the basis of the£600,000 raised in New Zealand, where there are no bookmakers, we could raise a much larger sum in this country.
That sort of arrangement overseas has enabled owners and breeders, particularly owners, in other countries to contribute much less to racing in the form of stakes. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) said that, whereas owners in this country pay 33⅓ per cent. towards the stake, in America the amount is as low as 1 per cent. The results of these arrangements are that, whereas the average owner in this country I understand, is losing money, in a country like France the average owner can just about break even and make his hobby cover his expenses.
A friend of mine who is a breeder in a moderate way, has been kind enough to open his books to me to show me the sort of difficulties which a breeder in this country has to face. He certainly has very heavy expenses. I cannot imagine any breeder in a small or moderate way of business making a profit at present. This friend of mine put to me one or two points which I wish to pass on to my right hon. Friends as being worthy of further consideration.
The first is on the question of the tax position which arises on the payment of levies to the horse racing industry. Under the 1928 Racecourse Control Betting Act, it was envisaged that the sums paid from the Totalisator Fund would be tax-free to the racing industry, but, under the House of Lords decision, tax had to be paid on them. Therefore, only about half as much went into the industry than was expected to go to it. If we give legislative form to the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee, we should make up our minds exactly how we expect these sums to be paid, whether, if used for capital purposes, they will attract any tax and, if used for revenue, whether they are to be taxed or not.
The second point is that the grants envisaged for breeders should perhaps be attached to the prize money on races in the same way as is done in France. When a horse wins a race in France not only does the owner get a prize, but the breeder gets a prize as well. I think that that is a sensible arrangement. The English breeder of a horse racing in France does not get any share of the prize money. I think that, equally, the French owner who wins a race over here should not get a share of the breeder's prize money in this country. We should consider the connection of the Irish breeder. I understand that his expenses in rearing yearlings are considerably less, about a third less, than they are in this country. The money going into this fund will come from English bookmakers, so it is very arguable whether the Irish breeder should expect a prize from this fund.
A further point I wish to put to my right hon. Friend refers to the way in which the levy should be raised. I have had experience in industry of raising levies for various purposes, such as for research. There are various ways of doing it, such as on turnover and profits. In the case of turnover, in industry one always has a check in the published accounts of a public company, but with bookmakers, presumably, there will be no check except the auditors' certificate, because they do not publish accounts. Bookmakers would no doubt say that it was unfair to levy on turnover, because if they made no profit it would be an added cost on which they received no return. I therefore imagine that we shall have strong representations from the


bookmakers that the levy should be assessed on profits.
If we do that, I am not sure that the scale recommended by the Committee is right. It could be divided into smaller steps. I do not like to see one step from£12,500 to£40,000, all paying one levy. The scale could also be taken a little higher. Bookmakers did not have to show their profits before the Peppiatt Committee, and it may be that some are making£60,000 a year. I see no reason why a bookmaker who makes£60,000 profit should not pay, for instance,£300 in levy. It must be remembered, as Mr. Hammond, of one of the Tote betting companies said, that this will be a charge against revenue, and, therefore, we should take into account the gross profits of the bookmakers before tax.
I am inclined to the view of the Jockey Club that£1¼ million is not quite high enough as the target. If a small country such as New Zealand can raise£600,000, surely we in this country could raise£6 million, if we set our minds to it, for the benefit of racing. In that connection, I hope that the breeders' prizes will not all be channelled through the National Stud. There are complaints against the National Stud, one of which is that the best horses, such as Never Say Die, go only to a very small circle of owners and the small or medium owner does not get sufficient chance with the National Stud. In Ireland, there is a rule by which any owner shall be allowed an appointment with the best horses every other year. That kind of arrangement ought to be made in this country.
If this fund is to be provided for the benefit of racing, there is a special case for some of the benefit being applied to help farriers. Where there is "no foot there is no horse", and we are getting very short of farriers in this country. I understand that there are only two firms left in Newmarket, and one has not been able to take on apprentices for twenty-five years because the terms in the blacksmiths' business are so poor at present. The question is urgent and ought to receive the attention of the Central Board.
Having decided, in principle, that I want to support racing and breeding, I do not agree with the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that

this money should come from the taxpayer. It is right, as the Peppiatt Committee said, that it should come out of racing. In view of the fact that it is done in that way in many countries and that the prizes in other countries are far higher than they are here, we could follow that example. For example, the Prix for the Arc de Triomphe in France is£48,000 and is likely to be increased in the very near future. In Brazil, the top prize in international races is£40,000. In this country, the best prize is£24,000, for the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth stakes.
Taking all these things into consideration, we can support the Report. There will obviously be a number of details to which it will be necessary to pay special attention. Having said that, I give the Motion my support.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I am glad that we have an opportunity this evening to discuss the Peppiatt Committee's Report, for we were handicapped while discussing the Betting and Gaming Bill in not having the Report before us.
In the circumstances, the Peppiatt Committee has done a very good job. The Report is short and perhaps even sketchy, and it did not provide the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) with the information which he required. Nevertheless, it has fulfilled what we need.
I welcome the Home Secretary's statement this afternoon, and I believe that it is right to endorse the general provisions of the Report, although I was glad to hear him say that his mind is not yet entirely made up about some of the details of the Report, because there may be grounds for improvement.
When discussing racing we should remember that it is a traditional sport in this country. We have a unique achievement in that we have developed the thoroughbred from only three stallions. It has spread throughout the world and is unchallenged in horse-flesh. That may have become of theoretical importance in these days of mechanisation but it is a great achievement.
At this stage I ought to declare an interest as a rather new owner and breeder. I do so at once. I should like


to endorse what has been said about the hazards of owning horses. I own primarily because I am a breeder. The Home Secretary quoted a remark of Byron about becoming "sager in the course of betting." Already, I am sager in the course of owning, and I am finding that it is rather an expensive business.
The case for racing has been well made out this afternoon. There are undoubtedly many people who take a great interest in it. Since I became an owner I have found that more people than I ever expected are interested in racing. I think that the solution suggested for the difficulties of racing—the introduction of a levy—is along the right lines. It has been rightly pointed out that the principle of assistance to racing from betting was accepted in the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928. What we are doing is extending that principle.
It would have been open to the Home Secretary on the Betting and Gaming Bill to suggest a Tote monopoly in this country and, indeed, other hon. Members have explained how well the Tote monopoly has worked in other countries, but it has been decided not to do that here and, now that the bookmakers have an official standing, I think it right that they should make a contribution to racing.
I am glad to hear that the amount of the levy is to be left flexible. I do not know whether there should be an upper limit. But I am a little mare doubtful about the method of raising the levy. I am not a chartered accountant, but it seems to me that there is always some difficulty in determining profits. If one wants to give one's manager a percentage of the profits, it is always difficult to arrive at exactly what they are. I am far from convinced that profits form the right basis on which the levy should be raised. Various other possibilities have been suggested, such as rateable value, turnover, number of employees and telephones, and I think that a formula could be found which would include more than one of these criteria so that it would be certain that it was absolutely fair. It is essential that the levy should be fair.
The next important question is that of the Central Board, which will decide how the money is to be distributed. The composition of that Board is all-

important, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) that it is undesirable that those who are to benefit from the distribution should be on the Board. I should like to see the number kept fairly small, but it is no use putting on it people who do not know a good deal about racing. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have another look at this problem.
I come now briefly to the all-important question of the distribution of the levy. The Racecourse Betting Control Board distributes£76,000 a year in various ways under its trust. Twenty-three thousand pounds goes to the Hunt Improvement and National Light Horse Society, but only£4,000 goes to the Thoroughbred Breeders' Association. That is a very small proportion if an attempt is being made to improve the breed of racehorses.
The lion's share of the distribution proposed in the Report—far more than half—will go to racecourses. Nearly everyone who has spoken has agreed that this is necessary. Those who know more about racecourses overseas than I do all say that amenities are much better and admission is far cheaper, so we can hardly quarrel with that distribution.
Secondly, it is proposed that£100,000 should go to breeders. This will apparently do two things. It should provide breeders' prizes and it will buy stallions. Anyone who knows the price of a good modern stallion wonders how the sum will do both those things, because the real problem for the smaller breeder is to find a stallion that he can get to. He wants something fairly good, but not quite in the top class. It is not very easy for him to find that at present.
It is then proposed that£250,000 should go in increased prize money. Much has been said this evening about prize money, but what we must remember is that the average owner of the future will probably be the small owner with very few horses. Many of those horses will never win a prize. What is difficult for the smaller owner is the number of forfeits, the money he loses when his horse does not even compete in the race in the end. The forfeits, namely, the money often paid out for horses with very little chance of winning, make it difficult for the smaller owner, to whom I hope the future does belong.

Travel is very: expensive. The Tote is giving£180,000 a year in travel allowances. That money is very well spent indeed. I am not sure whether in these days of smaller owners we should not seriously consider more concentration of flat racecourses. This should perhaps be encouraged by the Central Board in its distributions. The object should be that horses do not have to travel so far to racecourses. This system operates very much more in France.
Finally, there is the question of runners' allowances to help animals which never win races, but run in them. Up to a point, they should be encouraged to do so. The Tote paid runners' allowances until recently, but that has been discontinued. The money would probably be better spent in that way than by augmenting already large prizes for the bigger races which few ordinary owners can hope to win once in a lifetime.
I hope that the distribution will be looked into. If possible, some guidance should be given to the Central Board on how the money is to be distributed. I hope, also, that the composition of the Central Board will be gone into, but it should be kept small.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I am sorry that I have not listened to the whole of the debate, but it has seemed to me that it has probably been a debate of specialists. It is time the voice of an ordinary person who does not care two pence about racing is heard. After all, Parliament represents the people of the country as a whole. In my part of the country, Cornwall, the bulk of the people are just not very interested in racing.
Lately in the newspapers, particularly the popular newspapers, we have read about the late Aly Khan leaving millions of pounds worth of horses here, in Ireland and elsewhere. There has been speculation about taxation, death duties and so on. Now we learn that the Aga Khan is to take them over. I begin to wonder where this money which is proposed to be raised will go. The hon. Member for Dorset, North—

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Dorset, West.

Mr. Hayman: The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) is equally in the dark. When I read in my local newspapers that some football clubs and cricket clubs are closing down because of lack of finance, and that many others can keep going only by subscriptions from people who feel like supporting them, it is brought home to me that we should think twice before we pass legislation to provide money for horse racing.
I do not care where it comes from, but in the end I have no doubt that the money paid out by bookmakers will escape Income Tax and Profits Tax. The hon. Member for Willesden—

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Twickenham.

Mr. Hayman: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) spoke about incomes of bookmakers of£20,000 or£40,000. This industry ought to be capable of financing itself, and I agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East—

Mr. Powell: Wolverhampton, South-West.

Mr. Hayman: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that, if we are to finance this industry by legislation, it should be done in a decent way, perhaps out of taxation, so that everybody knows where we are going. I begin to wonder whether it is necessary. Who will get the money which will be provided if the proposal goes through? It will go, in the main, to Surtax payers.

Major Hicks Beach: The hon. Member has told us that people in his part of the country do not agree with racing.

Mr. Hayman: I did not say that.

Major Hicks Beach: Not all. Has the hon. Member any idea of the attendance at Buckfastleigh, Newton Abbot, and Devon and Exeter races, three of the most popular meetings in that part of the country? If he is seriously advocating that they should be abolished, he is on the wrong leg.

Mr. Hayman: The attendance at Buckfastleigh is probably 3,000 to 5,000. The population of Devon and Cornwall together is 1 million.

Major Hicks Beach: What about Newton Abbot?

Mr. Hayman: I am speaking about the relativity of populations. Cornwall has a population of 340,000. I will not say that a referendum in Cornwall would not show a majority in favour of this proposal, but a great number of people in Cornwall would be opposed to it. I am neither opposed to it nor in favour of it. We should be very careful before we pass legislation to support horse racing.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I join in the congratulations which have been paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) on having introduced this subject and to Sir Leslie Peppiatt and the members of his Committee for the work they have done in considering it. We should all be very grateful to them. I have some doubts about the wisdom of the course they recommend, and those doubts have on the whole survived the speech of the hon. Member for Cornwall—

Mr. Hayman: Falmouth and Camborne.

Mr. Bell: I was not going to risk stating which geographical corner of Cornwall the hon. Member represents. I thought that thereby I would avoid at least one of the errors with which his speech was studded. I do not own a racehorse, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) does, nor do I own a racecourse, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) does. Therefore, I feel almost a stranger to this subject.
My first reaction to these proposals was that, if bookmakers want to subsidise breeders and race horse owners, this was a little private arrangement in which I should not interfere. However, after reflection I am in some doubt about whether bookmakers are full of enthusiasm for doing this. I do not say this by way of criticism of the Report, but in it the evidence of breeders, race horse owners and trainers is summarised but there is no reference to what bookmakers thought or said. That may be because they speak with divided voices. Some do not want to pay at

all; others think that it is probably better to get in on the ground floor and strike a bargain, which sometimes means that one does better than by just putting up unqualified opposition.
I am not sure, however, that this is a consent bargain. Even if it were a consent bargain, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has now made it clear upon what basis this would be done. This, of course, is not in the Report. It would be done by a levy allowable as an expense against taxation —and, of course, it must be so. Some of the figures referred to by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) will be the profits of companies, which will not, of course, be liable to Surtax, but I should say that about half of the amount will come not out of the Exchequer but from a diminution of the national revenue. Therefore, as to about 50 per cent., this is an Exchequer subsidy on racing.
That may or may not be a good thing, but I share the doubts expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) as to the way in which this kind of thing gets done. If we are to give about£700,000 out of public revenue to racing, let us debate it on that basis and see how we feel about it. It may be right, it may be wrong—as I say, I am not a racing expert. My doubts are really based on the fact that every time we do this it seems to be used as a precedent to do a bit more next time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West used a phrase that sent a chill down my back. He said that it was merely extending the principle into another field. In the context, the use of the word "field" is very appropriate, but it is precisely what my hon. Friend referred to that worries me. He said that the principle of subsidising had been established by, I think, the Tote, and that this was merely extending it.
Paragraph 22 of the Report gives a list of other occasions on which this has been done. The first is the levy on cinema takings. I would agree that that is a very comparable levy, but it has always been put to us as a totally exceptional case—one that we should agree to because of its very special nature, and certainly not one that should be taken as a starting point for an ever


widening ramification of this kind of proceedings, so correctly described by the person who wrote to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) as the subsidising of one industry by other attendant industries, all being private industries, and all run for profit. It is a dangerous principle.
The second case mentioned in the Report is the sugar surcharge mechanism. With respect, that is not the same thing. That is a device for regulating the internal price of a commodity while at the same time not putting the export trade at a disadvantage in relation to countries where a similar regulatory system is not in force.
The Report next cites the levy on the cotton industry. That levy was justified in this House as being a once-and-for-all operation to encourage the industry to sweep away its old machinery, and to make a fresh start after what some hon. Members thought was a quarter of a century of stagnation. That was a very special case and a once-and-for-all operation.
The Report then refers to the levy payments under agricultural marketing schemes. Again, the case appears to be materially different. Those are producers' organisations, and they raise the levy partly to meet the administrative costs of the boards and partly to finance things like the encouragement of research and the improvement of the packaging and marketing of the people who pay the subscription. It is a sort of co-operative enterprise and not really to be regarded as a form of taxation of one section of the community for the benefit of another.
As I say, I am not an expert on this subject, but I still need to be satisfied that racing is a special case for which we should and could make another exception without laying ourselves open to further extensions to fresh fields in the future. If one glances at the arguments put forward by witnesses to the Committee, they are a little unconvincing. It is not for the encouragement of exports, because one reason given is that exports have been too high. Then we are told that the aggregate yearly costs to owners of race horses before the war was about£1 million while it is now over£2½million. If the ordinary person can today buy for 2½d. what he bought for a penny

before the war he counts himself rather lucky.
The general level of prices has risen by more than two and a half times, which means that the total burden on race horse owners new is less than it was before the war—

Mr. Digby: There is tax, of course.

Mr. Bell: That is a point. The real difference is not the extra burden on the racehorse owner, because there is not any. The difference is that the taxation of the individual is now so high that it is very difficult for the private person to carry on this kind of activity. If that is so, we should face it on that basis. I do not claim to say whether it is right or wrong; I just do not like, by instinct, this way of going about this sort of operation.
I shall not detain the House longer. I have explained how I feel on this ubject. I am sorry that the Government announced their intentions before hearing what hon. Members on both sides had to say. I hope that the Home Secretary will not feel himself committed by anything he has said today or on a previous occasion, but will carefully think out the constitutional implications of what is proposed—I will not say in the Report, but by the Government's announcement.

6.58 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I must declare a limited interest in horses, having had a very few thoroughbreds for many years—for far too many of them—and a few other horses as well. I know very little about betting. Literally, I have not placed a bet on a horse for thirty-five years, because I found it such an expensive hobby when I did so long ago.
I am very glad indeed that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is to help us to carry through the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee. It seems to me that we should encourage the breeding of medium- and long-distance horses. They have a tremendous value to the country and to the world. It may be said that the total export trade does not amount to very much. That is true, but it has consistently been a valuable export dollar earner for many years, and has helped to attract visitors.
If we were to let this great industry diminish it would be a sad day not only for English thoroughbreds, but for English pedigree stock breeding in general. My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) suggested that bookmakers should carry out their own proposals to raise this money. I entirely agree. They are much better fitted to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Departmental Committee on a Levy on Betting on Horse Races.

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ETC.) BILL (By Order)

As amended, considered.

Clause 4.—(COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR PURPOSES OF ACT.)

7.0 p.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out Clause 4.
I can best indicate the purpose of Clause 4 in relation to the Bill by reading from the first paragraph of the statement on behalf of the promoters in support of consideration of the Bill which, I think, has probably been sent to most hon. Members:
The main object of the Bill is to confer powers upon the County Council of the Administrative County of the County Palatine of Lancashire which would enable them to assist and, if need be, to promote industrial development within the administrative county. Clause 3 of the Bill would enable the County Council, for the purpose of such development, to acquire land within the administrative county by agreement, and Clause 4 provides that the County Council, by means of orders to be submitted to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and confirmed by him may be authorised to purchase compulsorily land in the administrative county for the purpose of such development in any case where the County Council are unable to acquire land by agreement on terms which, in their opinion, are reasonable.
My first objection to Clause 4 is that as a matter of principle, any body that comes to this House, whether the Government themselves, or a local authority, or, still more, any form of private undertaking seeking to acquire increased powers which it is to use by force or compulsion against private interests—in that case the onus is upon it to show that the powers are both necessary and desirable in the national interest. That, in my view, the promoters of this Clause have not done.
The House will know that the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, contains very wide powers of compulsory acquisition in cases of this kind. It may be helpful if I read the opening paragraph of Section 37 (1) of that Act:
Where any land is designed by a development plan under this Act as subject to compulsory acquisition by any Minister, local authority or statutory undertakers, that Minister or authority or those undertakers may be authorised to acquire that land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of this, section.


Section 5 of that Act, which deals with development plans, specifically gives powers to the local authority, amongst other things, to designate on the development plan any land
…as land as subject to compulsory acquisition…
which brings it within the terms of Section 37
by any Minister, local authority or statutory undertakers any land allocated by the plan for the purposes of any of their functions.
The word "functions" is defined in the Act as including "any powers or duties". In other words, it includes the powers and duties which the rest of the Bill seeks to confer upon the Lancashire County Council. It follows, therefore, that once the Bill becomes an Act, without Clause 4, as I hope, all that the Lancashire County Council has to do is to get its development plan right. Moreover, if we turn to paragraph 3 of the statement issued by the promoters we are told some of the reasons why these powers are considered necessary:
The powers of the Bill relating to industrial development are, in the view of the County Council, urgently required on two main grounds. First, the County Council are most anxious to be able to secure the success of the various Town Development Schemes which are proposed for the accommodation within the county of overspill population from the congested cities and towns of Lancashire which in the County Development Plan approved by the Minister is estimated to be of the order of 353,000 people by 1971. The County Council believe that the only answer to this problem lies in the planned movement of overspill population to existing towns which are capable of being built up and developed. In the case of the more distant reception areas it is essential that employment, as well as houses, should be provided for the persons to be accommodated. To this end, the County Council need powers themselves to provide and develop suitable industrial sites within such reception areas.
The House will remember that these town development schemes referred to in that statement which are designed to provide for this planned movement of overspill population derive from the Town Development Act, 1952. Section 1 of that Act defines land within the town development area in this way. It
means development in a county district … which will have the effect, and is undertaken primarily for the purpose, of providing accommodation for residential purposes (with or without accommodation) for the carrying on of industrial or other activities…

Section 6 of that Act confers compulsory powers on the receiving district, that is, the district to which the overspill population is moving, to purchase the necessary land compulsorily.
So, here again, there are already clear powers to acquire land compulsorily precisely for the purpose which the Lancashire County Council may require such land under the terms of the Bill. Section 6 (4) of the Act of 1952 incorporates the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, in the same way as Clause 4 (2) does of the present Bill. Section 6 (5) provides that the whole of Section 6 is to be read as one with Part IV of the Act of 1947, from which I have already quoted.
It is clear, therefore, that the Lancashire County Council already has very substantial powers of compulsory acquisition. In the conversations which I have had with the clerk of the county council and the Parliamentary agents I have, naturally, been anxious to ascertain why these powers are inadequate and why further powers are required. They have been quite frank with me and they told me that the sole reason is one of speed.
That brings me to my second objection, which concerns planning. It is clear from what I have been told by the clerk and the Parliamentary agents that their fear is that without these powers, in the case of land which has not been properly designated within their development plan or is not within an area designated for town development, the delay which alteration of the development would necessitate might result in the county council losing a possible customer. In other words, these powers are there purely to meet the case of the firm which, although perfectly willing to move into Lancashire, is not attracted by a particular site which may be available and earmarked in the development plan or under the 1952 Act or by any site which the Lancashire County Council is able to acquire by agreement under Clause 3.
The plain fact is that the Lancashire County Council, to catch its industrialists, is quite prepared and, indeed, anxious to jettison the whole of its development plan, and it seeks these powers to enable it to do so. When all


is said and done, it is the House which has cast upon county councils as local planning authorities the obligation to plan. If the Lancashire County Council has a misconceived development plan and has already earmarked the areas suitable for industrial development, whether under the development plan or under the 1952 Act, it has all the powers it needs to carry out the purposes enumerated in the other Clauses of the Bill. If the county council has not done what is necessary, then the 1947 Act provides adequate machinery—

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman has just said that the Lancashire County Council is quite prepared to jettison its development plan, which has been published now for some years. What is his evidence for saying that?

Mr. Corfield: If the hon. Gentleman has followed the argument which I have been trying to put, he will observe that these powers can be required only if that is its intention. If the county council wishes to stick to its development plan, then the powers of the 1947 Act are already there to enable it to acquire the land it requires. If the development plan is wrong, or if the county council finds that it wants to alter it for one reason or another in order to be able to acquire land, then the 1947 Act, in my view, provides perfectly adequate machinery for amending the development plan and bringing it up to date from time to time in accordance with changing circumstances.
It seems very questionable that the House should pass private legislation enabling an individual planning authority to be able to say, in effect, "As regards industry, we need not bother about the development plan because we now have powers to overrule it whenever we feel like it". As I understand them, that is the effect of these powers.
I am the last to suggest that all aspects of planning legislation today are perfect, but I am quite certain that matters will not be improved by giving individual planning authorities powers of dispensation. If there are to be amendments of our planning legislation, they must surely be on a national basis, as, indeed, the original planning legislation was.
I know that the county council has given certain undertakings in paragraph 5 of its statement, and, in particular, to meet certain criticisms, it says that it is prepared to give an undertaking
to provide that the County Council shall seek planning permission from the Minister of Housing and Local Government for any development proposed under the provisions of the Bill which is the subject of objections by any person having an interest in the land concerned.
I suggest that, to safeguard the planning position, the undertaking should be an undertaking that planning permission will be secured from the Minister in every case when these powers are used in contravention of the county council's own development plan.

My third objection arises from my grave doubt whether the safeguards in the Bill for the ordinary private interests are as strong as they would be under the existing powers or as strong as I have been given to understand that they are. When I spoke to the clerk and to the Parliamentary agents, I was assured that the rights of private individuals were safeguarded to exactly the same extent as under the other legislation by which the county could acquire land compulsorily. Although I accepted that assurance, I am not at all sure, after further investigation that it is sound. The Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, which is incorporated by Clause 4 (2) of the Bill, requires the Minister to afford to any objectors an opportunity to be heard, but it requires him to do so only where those objections are made by an owner, a lessee, or an occupier who has an interest in the land extending over more than one month.
Of course, if, as a result of objections from any of those people, the Minister decides to order a public inquiry, then other people can attend and other objections can be heard. Nevertheless, the fact remains that, if there is no objection from this limited class, there will be no inquiry.
Any proposal to put an industrial undertaking on some piece of land designated in the development plan for some other purpose is surely something likely to be of interest to a much wider group of people than those having a legal interest in the land. For instance, if the green belt were affected, it could well be that the land involved would be in one


ownership and in the occupation of the freeholder. In such a case, the only person whose objection the Minister would be bound to hear would be that one person, yet, as I think most hon. Members will agree, the matter might well be of far wider interest from the public point of view. Indeed, that one person might very well not object, especially if the result of objecting would be to lose for himself the industrial value of the land and have it permanently restricted to the agricultural value.
On the other hand, when an amendment to the development plan is involved, the requirements are very much wider. This is my principal objection to the safeguards. By Article 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans) Regulations, 1948, it is provided that
After the Development Plan has been submitted the Minister shall take into consideration the Development Plan and any objection or representation received by him within the specified period and shall decide whether or not to cause a public local inquiry to be held into the objections or representations at which any interested persons may be heard.
I ask the House to note that the words are "any interested persons", not "any persons legally interested". The Article goes on:
If the Minister decides to dispense with an inquiry he shall, before approving the Development Plan, afford to any person who has duly made an objection and whose objection has not been met or withdrawn, an opportunity…
That is very much wider than the limited requirement of the 1946 Act.
It is, therefore, not true to say that the safeguards in the Bill are the same as those in the 1947 Act. They are the same as under the 1952 Act, but the powers of the 1952 Act are virtually identical with those sought under Clause 4. It is very difficult to imagine a case arising in which there would be any advantage to the county council in using the proposed powers of Clause 4 instead of the powers it already has under the 1952 Act. The only advantage which the proposed powers under Clause 4 give is to enable the authority to override the difficulties of compulsory acquisition under the 1947 Act. It is then and then only, as I see it, that the Clause 4 provisions are likely to be used as an alternative to the existing provisions. It is precisely when compared with the 1947 Act that these safeguards do not

reach the standard of those in the earlier Act.
My fourth objection arises under the Local Employment Act. This, again, is referred to in the undertakings in paragraph 5 of the statement by the promoters. As we all know, that Act gives to the Board of Trade powers to acquire land compulsorily for industrial purposes to meet local unemployment problems, but to meet them on a national basis. Once again, we should ask ourselves: is it sensible to put individual local authorities into direct competition with the national effort? It is true that there are certain restrictions on the terms under which any land acquired under Clause 4 can be disposed of—I refer to Clause 6—but it is equally true that Clause 8 contains powers which enable the Lancashire County Council, in certain circumstances, to be a very strong competitor with the Board of Trade.
Although an assurance has been given that these powers will not be used where there is a development district under the Local Employment Act, the danger is that the Lancashire County Council may attract away from a development district industry which might otherwise be prepared to go there. The Board of Trade, admittedly, has a final say through its ability to refuse an industrial development certificate, but I do not think that it requires much imagination to visualise the sort of pressure which would be exerted on the Board of Trade once the Lancashire County Council acquired the land, built a factory, agreed a loan—it could be a very generous loan and was in a position to offer a firm vacant possession.
That brings me to my fifth objection, which follows from the statement at the beginning of paragraph 4 of the statement of the Lancashire County Council in which it admits that these powers "are virtually unprecedented". There is, I believe, one other Private Bill with similar powers, the Jarrow Bill. It is clear, however, that once the Bill becomes an accepted practice, it will be very difficult to refuse these powers to other county councils and county borough councils.
It seems to me that we are courting the danger of major local authorities eventually competing with each other and with the Board of Trade, initially at the expense of the ratepayer, to attract


industry to their areas, thereby increasing the rateable values on which the salaries of their officials depend, and generally building up an empire over which the only arbiter will be, not my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is responsible to this House for planning, but the President of the Board of Trade, who is not.
Finally, it may, and possibly will, be argued that Lancashire is a special case and that there is no question of a precedent. We must remember, however, that the special case of Lancashire has already had very considerable consideration under the Cotton Industry (Compensation for Redundancy) Act. There is at least one school of thought, illustrated in the Economist of 7th May, which clearly thinks that that Measure has had its effect and that the special position of Lancashire is no longer applicable. I should like to quote two short passages from that article. In referring to the closing of mills, it states:
Yet, as so often in the last ten years, the latest mill closures have had a much less disastrous effect than was at one time feared. In part, this is because up to half the spindles and looms now taken out of commission had for long been unemployed. But mainly it is because the latest closures have coincided with a general period of industrial expansion and a world-wide upsurge in the demand for cotton. Order books have lengthened and the reorganisation scheme, far from leaving great pools of local unemployment, has actually been attended by shortages of some types of mill labour in some of the cotton towns.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman now deal with those parts of Lancashire which have no direct relationship with cotton?

Mr. Corfield: I am saying that the argument which is always put forward is that Lancashire's dependence on cotton puts it in a special position. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In so far as Lancashire has other difficulties, I submit that there are other parts of the country with similar difficulties. What I am saying is that what is proposed here is likely to be followed as a precedent.
I should like to continue with the quotation from the article:
One's guess is that the labour shortage will continue and hasten cotton's decline.

If that is a fair, or even a tenable, forecast, it seems that it is hardly likely to help by over-stimulating alternative employment, which is the purpose of this Bill.
I do not believe that there is any need for these powers at all. I am prepared to give hon. Members opposite the rest of the Bill which enables the local authority to do all that it wants to do without the special powers. It already has all the powers, if it will use them properly, necessary to carry out its objectives. The only object and effect of the power in this Clause is to enable the local authority to ignore its development plan and to take a short cut where it has either made a mistake or wished to make a more attractive offer to a firm by offering it land which, in the past, it never occurred to the authority to designate for industrial purposes.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: On glancing round the Chamber, I am happy to see a respectable number of Lancashire Members present. No doubt, like myself, they are wondering why these fundamental objections to Clause 4 should be put before us so forcibly by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield). I agree, however, that this is the proper place to ventilate any objections that might legitimately arise on a Private Bill of this kind. I should like to apologise to the hon. Member for missing the first few minutes of his speech, but I was detained on other business in another part of the House.
In putting forward these technical objections, I think the hon. Member is trying to avoid the main issue which is the concern of all of us in Lancashire who understand the principles behind the Bill. We are not concerned with technical arguments to defend property interests beyond the point at which public interest demands.

Mr. Corfield: rose—

Mr. Price: I will give way in a moment.
We are not concerned to defend the property interests of private landowners who might be opposed to the public interest and to the things that the Lancashire County Council requires to do.


We are concerned that the Lancashire County Council should have adequate power to deal with a situation which has changed radically and fundamentally since the Lancashire development plan was published some years ago.
I should like to put this to the hon. Gentleman, not as an academic point of law, but as a practical point of the industrial needs of Lancashire. Manchester, a great industrial conurbation, is grossly overcrowded. It is without land to house hundreds of thousands of people waiting for new houses.

Mr. James Watts: I do not think that this is accurate. There is a great deal of open space which is not being used.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Before my hon. Friend seriously takes up that intervention, I should like to make this point. Successive Ministers of Housing and Local Government have expressed the view that Manchester, with the land available, cannot meet the obligations of its overspill population. The hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts) ought to know that as well as anyone.

Mr. Harold Boardman: I might also say that the Lancashire County Council—

Mr. Speaker: This multiplicity of interventions is a little confusing.

Mr. Price: I am much obliged to anyone who wants to help me with this argument. I referred to Manchester only in order to bring out the real point that I wanted to make.
I represent one of the county divisions of Lancashire. The Westhoughton division is an urban area of about 100 square miles, and it still has some open spaces. Manchester, which is from 12 to 15 miles away, is faced with an inability to house the people on its waiting lists within its own boundaries. I need not bore the House by going over a historical recital of the efforts made by the city council in Manchester for many years to find living space for the people which it is unable to house.
I am not concerned directly with the affairs of Manchester. I am concerned with the repercussions on county areas as a result of the demand of Manchester for more space where it can build houses

to take up the slack in its surplus population. I am told that in the Westhoughton division approaches recently have been made to the urban authorities to make them responsible for the acceptance of an overspill population of about 60,000 from Manchester within the next few years. It is impossible to envisage a situation in which any urban authority, controlling the population of these outside districts miles away from Manchester, would be so stupid as to tie itself to binding agreements to take large surplus populations unless it was reasonably assured that there would be employment to match the needs of the people who went there.

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Member has missed the point. He is talking entirely in terms of the Town Development Act. 1952, which gives all the powers that the hon. Member wants to deal with the overspill problem and the accompanying industry. My argument has been directed to the fact that there is no need for these increased powers in addition. All that the hon. Member has done is to confirm that argument by stating exactly the conditions which the Town Development Act was designed to deal with and does, in fact, meet.
Section 6 of the 1947 Act makes it clear that at any time when a local authority wants to amend its development plan, there is simple machinery for doing so. A local authority is not hound by something which it has done five or even ten years earlier. It must put forward amendments every five years, but there is no need to wait five years if it does not wish to do so.

Mr. Price: The hon. Member has put forward a clever lawyer's argument. All these matters of principle have, however, presumably been debated by the Committee upstairs, composed of representatives of both sides of this House. Apparently, competent people representing the Government side, matched by similar Members from this side, have given proper consideration to the Bill and have given their full approval to the needs of the county in this respect. It is rather late in the day for an hon. Member from Gloucestershire to tell the House that the Committee upstairs did not know what it was doing. Presumably, the Committee upstairs was properly


advised by counsel and knew well the merits of the argument.
If the 1952 Act had given the county council powers satisfactory to meet the situation which I have tried to describe, it would not have sought new powers. The Lancashire County Council is not everybody's cup of tea. We know perfectly well that a struggle is always going on between the county boroughs and the county council. Within the next few years, this struggle will be intensified by the operation of the Local Government Act, 1958, a piece of legislation to which I devoted a great deal of time as a member of the Standing Committee upstairs. These tendencies must be met as they emerge.
I am not expressing any opinion tonight about the merits of where the surplus population of Manchester should go. This is a highly controversial issue. It is controversial in my constituency, where people who represent small, established communities fear that a large influx of population may blot out the characteristics of those communities. That is not a matter that we are called upon to debate tonight.
The matter which I want to face is one which is germane to the terms of the Bill, to which objection has been taken. If the Lancashire County Council wishes to canalise, or to encourage or assist in any way, an orderly redistribution of the population, it must also have in mind the needs of industry to match the transfer of population from large centres to the small centres.
I make no apology, as representing one of the areas affected, for saying that I would be disinclined to support any acceptance of large population from Manchester or anywhere else into my part of Lancashire if I were a local government officer or councillor unless adequate guarantees were given that it was possible to plan the industrial development of those areas to match the population.
Let us not forget also that we are considering the Bill against the background of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, which has been often debated in this House. The great criticism of that Act and all that flowed from it was that it had no teeth. It provided for advice, counsel and assistance by giving preferential rates and all kinds of

inducements, but in the last analysis it did not provide for the direction of industry to any place that could prove a need for industry.
On behalf of the sponsors of the Bill, we as Lancashire Members are saying that Lancashire needs these powers to ensure as far as is humanly possible that if populations must be transferred into areas where land is available, the county council is able to provide the industrial land that is needed for the communities to be established there.
I cannot see the force of an argument which takes refuge in some kind of veiled defence of property interests. I cannot see the force of such an argument when in all the preceding stages of the Bill it has been established beyond cavil, in the Committee upstairs and elsewhere, that the Lancashire County Council needs these powers. I shall be very sorry if at this late stage, perhaps on a theoretical or ideological basis, the House of Commons puts a spoke in the wheel of the Bill at its most vital point, the point at which the county seeks power in its special circumstances to apply for the compulsory purchase of land.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South quoted one or two extracts from the memorandum issued by the county authority. I should like to remind him that in the same memorandum, dealing with the need for Clause 4 of the Bill, the county authority states:
The only reason why the County Council consider that the powers of the clause are necessary is that such powers would meet the situation where the development and laying out of an industrial estate is prevented by one individual owner of one parcel of land so situate in relation to the remainder of the estate (which could be purchased by agreement) that the scheme could not proceed without that parcel of land.
In other words, the county council is prudently taking steps to safeguard itself against the man who sticks his neck out and tries to capitalise his nuisance value by asking an exorbitant price for a piece of land which is needed to complete the development of an estate. As the county council memorandum puts it,
the county council could be 'held to ransom' since they must either pay whatever price is demanded for the parcel of land in question or abandon the scheme.
I entirely fail to see the force of these technical arguments.
The Lancashire County Council, being, as it is, one of the largest and most important county authorities, staffed by some of the most skilful and competent officers, who know what they are doing, would not go to all the expense required to promote a Parliamentary Bill of this nature if it did not need these powers. It would not do it for cussedness.
The powers which are sought are reasonable. They will assist not only the orderly industrial development in the special circumstances: they will inferentially assist great conurbation areas like Manchester and help us to blend the population together in the best way that is open to us, not in the best interest of landowners, but in the greater interest of the community. These greater needs should prevail when there is a dispute of this nature. I therefore very much hope that we shall be able tonight to dispose of the Amendment and will give authority for the Third Reading of the Bill without it.

Mr. Corfield: We are in an extraordinary position. I am supporting the Socialist Act of 1947 and it is the hon. Member who says that it is insufficient and that more powers are required to carry out the planning.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I assure the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) that my argument will not be technical, theoretical or ideological, but, I hope, practical. The hon. Member put forward a sound argument for the Local Employment Act, 1960, the general argument for many parts of Lancashire being development areas under that Act. It is surprising that, as we have only just passed that Act through the House of Commons, Lancashire County Council should come forward asking for almost identical powers to those given to the Board of Trade, and, indeed, to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, under that Act. Those powers were given provided that the Board of Trade declared the areas to be development areas, that is to say, districts whose needs required certain particular consideration from the point of view of development of industry. As the House will recall, that Act gave power for the provision of premises and sites, the acquisition of land, the giving of grants

and loans to industrial undertakings, and various ancillary powers.
If a local authority desires something further by way of powers of acquisition to those powers granted so recently by that Act, I think that the House will say it ought to show exceptional circumstances. It ought to show not only exceptional circumstances, but that the Local Employment Act is insufficient to meet those exceptional circumstances.
Thirdly, having proved those two things, it ought to show that the rights of individuals concerned, where there is proposed compulsory purchase of land, are sufficiently protected by the Private Bill which the county council wishes the House to pass. The county council has stated, in a statement put before us, that this power now asked for is virtually unprecedented. Therefore, it is surely right that the House should consider it; otherwise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) said, this might become a precedent for much weaker cases than Lancashire's.
In my own view, Lancashire has proved that there are exceptional circumstances. Evidence was given before the Committee of the areas of unemployment and the various circumstances, which I shall not detain the House now upon, which put Lancashire in an exceptional position. Having accepted that there are those circumstances, one has to go one step further and ask: does the Local Employment Act provide for this? Are there sufficient provisions in the Act? Or, to put it another way, is it possible or advantageous for a local authority, if given the power, to supplement the Act?
I would go as far with the Lancashire County Council as to say that there is a case for the county council' supplementing the Act; that because of certain particular overspill difficulties it is right that the county council should ask for power of supplementation. Therefore, having disposed of those two points, are there the exceptional circumstances, is it right that if there are the exceptional circumstances the county council should have some extra powers to deal with them, I come to the third question: are the rights of individuals being properly protected in this Private Bill?
I have no compunction in saying that I want to ensure that the rights of vested


landowners—I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton called them—are being protected. It is right that this House should see whether a Private Bill is giving protection to the private property owners. Perhaps, now, I should mention a financial interest in the National Federation of Property Owners, who were the petitioners against the Bill in Committee. Therefore, I do look at it from the point of view of the individual owner who is faced with a compulsory purchase order by virtue of this Bill.
As the Bill stood when it came out of Committee the owner, who might be reluctant to dispose of his land and is faced with a compulsory purchase order, might first be faced by the Board of Trade; and having escaped the Board might then be faced by the county council. I thought that this was too much of a duplication of attack on the individual. I asked the county council whether there was any solution to that, whether it really wanted to use those powers within an area which the Board of Trade had declared a development area. I was assured that it did not, and I was given an undertaking that in another place, when the Bill reached there, a Clause would be proposed with the purpose of avoiding that duplication of attack on the individual. Indeed, I have been provided with a draft of that Clause, which to me is satisfactory. It overcomes my objection on that score.
The second point on the protection for the individual owner is whether he would have proper rights of objection to any course which the county council desired to take—proper right of objection in time. It is true that under the Bill he would have the right to object to a compulsory purchase order when it came, but that is rather too late to put forward matters of principle against a compulsory purchase. Under the ordinary law a county council, if it wishes to change a development plan and, for example, build industry where there is at present housing, has to go through a form of inquiry. The individual owner has the right to make his voice heard at that inquiry. Under this Bill that would be cut out. That is to say, the Bill authorises a change of the development plan without any inquiry and so the

individual would be deprived of one point at which he could make his voice heard.
Then, if the county council had this power for which it asks in the Bill, it could then proceed to give itself planning permission. It is true that it would be bound by the 1947 Act to get planning permission, but it could give itself planning permission; and, of course, there is no appeal against a grant of planning permission; and so the owner concerned with planning permission over his land which is to be compulsorily purchased would have no voice.
I put the point to the county council, to see whether there was any solution. The solution which I suggested was that the county council in such a case should always have its planning permission called in by the Minister; that is to say, it should not grant itself planning permission, but that the application should be made to the Minister. Of course, then if any person were to object the Minister would hold a public inquiry and the objector's voice would thus be heard. I have been given an undertaking that in another place it will be proposed that a Clause to that effect be inserted in the Bill, so that where the county council wishes to change the zoning, say from housing to industrial, and the owner of that housing property objects, the planning permission will have to go to the Minister and the objector can be heard at a public inquiry. If a public inquiry is held others can come in and be heard in addition to the objector.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I have listened sympathetically to the hon. Member's argument, but can he tell me in what way what he is now saying differs fundamentally from the present contents of the Clause? The council says that:
Any order made by them for this purpose would, however, be subject to confirmation by the Minister of Housing and Local Government who, as you know, would be statutorily bound first to consider any objections made to him against the order after giving the objectors a hearing either by way of a public local inquiry or informally.

Mr. Page: I do not know to what order the hon. Member is referring.

Mr. Williams: I am talking about Clause 4 and the statement made to us by Lancashire County Council.

Mr. Page: I take it that the hon. Member means a compulsory purchase order. As I said earlier, objecting to a compulsory purchase order is rather too late to make an objection on principle to development. It is an objection to the actual purchase of that piece of land. I have never felt that that was sufficient to deal with a matter from the point of view of principle.
Indeed, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, recognised that there should be different stages. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) knows, there is, for example, the clearance order. Residents have a right to object to a clearance order and then to a compulsory purchase order on their own land. That is the sort of procedure that I want to retain in the Bill and which Lancashire County Council has given me an undertaking it is desired to retain by the introduction of a Clause which will oblige application to the Minister for planning permission, instead of to the Council itself, and thereby give the objector the right to object in principle.
On the undertakings which I have been given I am satisfied from the point of view of the individual, where the Bill is an encroachment on the rights of owners or the rights of property the county council has done everything it can to overcome these difficulties. At the same time, because the county council admits that this power is virtually unprecedented, I think that it is right to raise it in the House and to have the decision of the House upon it, in case, unless the House is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, it should become a precedent for local authorities merely endeavouring to get a little bit more than the House has been prepared to give by general law.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. H. Boardman: I am sure the House listened with rapt attention to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) talking about the problems of Lancashire. Whilst, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) said, the hon. Member has a perfect right to raise matters of this kind in the House, I would advise him in future that if he wants to talk about Lancashire at least to leave the Lancashire cotton industry alone until he knows something about it and

about the effect of the Local Employment Act on Lancashire industrial locations, because I have a feeling that the hon. Member knows very little.

Mr. Corfield: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me some credit for knowing something about the problems of Gloucestershire. It was those I had in mind in expressing the hope that What was happening in Lancashire would not be a precedent.

Mr. Boardman: I would hesitate to talk about Gloucestershire unless I knew rather more about it than the hon. Member knows about Lancashire.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton said, this Bill has gone through Committee, and I rise only to mention something about which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) must be feeling very flattered. He has told us once or twice this evening that he has had an undertaking. Lancashire Members have been informed by Lancashire County Council that it has given an undertaking. This really makes a lot of nonsense of Private Bill procedure in Committee upstairs. I sat on one such Committee when I had occasion to object to something of a similar nature going on, and I went to the Private Bill Office and said, "Do not ever put me on a Committee on a Bill of this kind again."
It is nonsense that we should have a Committee deliberating and listening to arguments and then merely because one back bencher puts his name on the Order Paper and lets Lancashire County Council know that he is displeased with a particular Clause somebody runs round to him and says, "Please, Sir, we will amend it in another place."

Mr. Page: The hon. Member will observe that I did not take my name off the Order Paper. The result is that I have been able to report to the House the undertakings given and allow the House to decide upon them.

Mr. Boardman: What I am saying is no criticism of the hon. Member. He has a right to put down a Motion, but when a Bill has gone through Committee upstairs and that Committee has listened to all the arguments and conceded the Clause it is quite wrong that on notice of an objection by a back bencher and


in order to meet his wishes as a representative of the National Federation of Property Owners, the Bill should be amended in another place.
In future, I shall take the strongest objection to any Private Bill when there is any likelihood of anything of this kind happening. I would prefer a Clause to be refused by a Committee upstairs than have it subject to this Parliamentary privilege in reverse, with the result that one has only to give notice on the Order Paper that one does not like a Clause and a local authority may be intimidated and the Clause removed. If Lancashire County Council wants to keep the loyalty of Lancashire Members and it believes that it has a worth-while Bill in the first place, it should stick to that Bill during its passage through the House.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I hope that my short intervention will not arouse the wrath of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman). I apologise for the intrusion of a Member representing a constituency in south-east England in a north-western affair, but Lancashire is not the only county facing the problem of town development, with which I am wholly sympathetic, and I think that Lancashire would be the first to admit that the provisions in the Bill may well have repercussions far outside the County Palatine. That is why, in a way, I support the Amendment.
The first question to be considered is why at this stage the county feels that it must promote a Bill which contains, as the county readily and straightforwardly admits, at least one Clause, namely, Clause 4, which is virtually unprecedented. The Bill is a measure which is obviously presented in good faith and because its provisions are urgently needed. The Town Development Act was passed in 1952 and is obviously the foundation of the work which Lancashire and other counties are trying to do with varying success in different places, and it has been supplemented by other Acts.
What the House has the duty to inquire into is not what Lancashire is seeking to do but why it is seeking to do it at this point. There seems to be a clear indication in the Bill that the task of co-ordinating the movement of

industry and of population is not going at all on the lines so hopefully envisaged in 1952 when we passed the Town Development Act. It is with a view to making that point that, with some trepidation, I intrude in this all-Lancashire affair.
A Bill of this scope—and I do not think that its scope will be denied by hon. Members representing Lancashire—makes one wonder whether there ought not to be a much wider reappraisal by the Government. In effect, the Bill suggests that town development is not moving so much on one rail as on two rails, and they are not strictly parallel. One rail is borne by the Board of Trade, with its responsibility for industry, and the other by the Ministry of Housing, which must make the best of the social consequences created by movements inspired or sponsored by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but I hope he will remember that we are debating just one Amendment, which is to leave out Clause 4.

Mr. Deedes: I was stating my reasons for supporting that Amendment, but I will endeavour not to go too wide in what I am saying.
Lancashire is seeking to improve its work, in this matter of co-ordinating the movement of industry with the movement of population, in a new way, and, coming back to Clause 4, with new powers which must include very heavy additional and unfamiliar responsibilities for Lancashire. I am not suggesting that Lancashire County Council wants to burden itself with what will be heavy additional responsibilities. At least, if it does, it must have very cogent and good reasons for seeking to do so. If such powers are needed in Lancashire, always admitting the exceptional problems of that county, will they not be needed elsewhere?
There was a reference to the possibility of a free-for-all—local authorities competing against one another for industries —resulting from Clause 4. I began by saying that I do not suggest that these powers are not needed. From Lancashire's point of view they probably are,


but they are not in the direction I would like to see taken. Rather than the compulsory powers suggested in Clause 4, I strongly favour, in Lancashire as in any other county, a much closer co-relation between industry and local authority, a formation of some kind of consortium, in which the two could work together and not apart. However, that would take me to a subject wider than this debate.
The Bill should cause the House and my right hon. Friend to reflect, because there are clear signs that if Lancashire means what it says, especially in Clause 4, then our intentions in 1953 are now failing, or Clause 4 would not be necessary. That is the real meaning of the difficulty which the House has in this case. I have no wish to obstruct save to add my objection to the Clause, but I hope that this will be a signal that others, outside Lancashire County Council. have a rising problem in this respect and that sooner or later we will have to have a fresh look at the matter and take fresh action.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Walter Monslow: I want to make one or two comments on some of the observations which have been made during the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman), I regret the intervention of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) in matters which are not germane to his constituency or county. I would have preferred that that intervention had been made by someone with some knowledge and understanding of Lancashire's social and economic problems.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said that he believed that Lancashire had cogent and good reasons for introducing the Bill and thought that it had been introduced in good faith. I am confident that that is true. I appreciate the fear of hon. Members opposite that the Bill might create a precedent with which they would not be disposed to agree, but I am not sure that I endorse that sentiment. If a local authority wants to look after the interests of the community, social or economic, why should we frustrate its efforts? 
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said that he had been given an undertaking by Lancashire

County Council regardless of what was done in Committee upstairs. I say quite frankly that that is a great reflection on the Committee and on hon. Members on both sides of the House. No hon. Member should be able to claim the right to be able to induce a county council to give him some undertaking to meet his point of view. That is entirely wrong.
The arguments against Clause 4 tonight have been pathetically weak and the only reason for them has been the assumption that the Clause would create a precedent which the House would not want. I believe that the Lancashire County Council has done what is right and that it will co-ordinate its efforts with the Board of Trade and all other interests before seeking to do anything which might be thought not to be in the best interests of Lancashire.

8.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): It may be helpful if I intervene now to make a few comments. The debate is on a very narrow but extremely important topic, and is restricted to Clause 4. I note the wider comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and I will consider them, but I must restrict myself to Clause 4 and its implications.
Hon. Members from Lancashire have already spoken and it is not for me to argue the case for the Lancashire County Council, but it is for me to remind the House that the decision is for the House and that my right hon. Friend has already expressed his opinion to the Select Committee which has considered the whole Bill, including Clause 4. In fact, it gave a whole day to receiving evidence on Clause 4. The case against Clause 4 was vigorously presented, but in the end the Committee passed it.
After his own serious consideration of Clause 4, my right hon. Friend decided that Lancashire had made a case for including that Clause. The House will remember that in his report to the Committee, referring to Clause 4, my right hon. Friend said:
Parliament will no doubt wish to be satisfied that the county council have a need for these powers before they are granted, but for his part the Minister would not wish to raise any objection to them.


I shall seek to persuade the House that Clause 4 does not remove any protection from the citizen. My job is the harder because of the formidable case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield). He had every right to make that case, and the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), who referred to it as a casual or weak case—

Mr. J. T. Price: indicated dissent.

Sir K. Joseph: —could not have been listening. It was a sustained and cogent argument. Surely no one here thinks that planning principles stop short of applying to Lancashire. My hon. Friends who have spoken have been dealing with the elementary rights of the citizen and they had every right to make the points which they made, particularly when they made them in a most responsible and cogent manner.
I want now to try to meet their understandable points about any potential loss of protection of the citizen's rights. I am in a difficulty. I shall set out to prove that Clause 4 does not deprive the citizen of any rights, but that may imply that there is no harm in repeating Clause 4 up and down the country, and I do not want to maintain that point of view.
My right hon. Friend believes that the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 powers suffice, except when there is a very strong case for the need for some such special powers as Clause 4 introduces. I hope that no argument which I set out this evening will be taken as meaning that I think that Clause 4 should set a precedent. I emphasise that my right hon. Friend will consider every case on its merits and that there will need to be the strongest possible argument before, without protest, he sees other local planning authorities introducing a Clause like this.
I turn now to the reason for the Clause. I agree with my hon. Friend who said that there was no justification for this Clause in town development because the Town Development Act already gives compulsory purchase powers to the local authority concerned. The reason for this power is because technological change is operating so quickly these days that it outpaces any predictable development plan. It has been said on both sides that

a local authority faced with declining industry may want to tempt industrialists in conditions where speed is of the essence. What are its powers for acquiring land?
We already know that it can, by other parts of the Bill with which no one is in dispute, acquire land by agreement, lay it out and develop it ready for any industrialist. We know that if it is a town development local authority it can use the compulsory powers, if it needs them, under the Town Development Act, but I have to meet the case where land which they wish to acquire for the industrialist does not fall within a town development scheme, cannot be acquired by agreement, and has not even been allocated to industry in the development plan.
That is the case that I have to meet, but I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that technological change is so quick that it is not necessarily the fault of the local authority that it cannot predict where industrial land may be needed within the period of time during which any development plan must remain constant. We must therefore face the possibility that a local authority may need to use compulsion. It it does not have the power given it within the Bill, it is thrown back on its powers under the 1947 Act to which my hon. Friends have correctly referred.
I must now distinguish between land which is allocated for industry on the one hand and land which is not allocated for industry in the development plan. If it has already been allocated for industry, I think my hon. Friends will agree that the people living in the area will have had their chance to make representations about the allocation for industry when the development plan containing that allocation was made. If it was not allocated for industry, the local planning authority should seek my right hon. Friend's permission for a change of allocation before making any substantial departure from the development plan allocation and it is open to my right hon. Friend to hold an inquiry, and to call in the decision himself and hold an inquiry, or require the local planning authority to advertise its proposals and then to hold an inquiry.
In any of those cases the public has a right to have its voice heard, and I


think that the protection of the citizen is clear, but, and here I come to the point which is important, the 1947 Act requires that not only shall land be allocated for industry either because it was so allocated in the development plan or because a change of allocation has been approved by my right hon. Friend, but it must also be designated for compulsory purchase. This also requires approval, and, if there is an objection, a local inquiry is necessary. The third requirement for compulsory purchase is that there shall be made a compulsory purchase order, and that again requires the approval of my right hon. Friend. There are, therefore, three stages.
I come now to the crux of my hon. Friend's arguments. They say that instead of three stages as is required by the 1947 Act, Clause 4 reduces them to two stages in the case where the land is not already allocated for industrial use. They are quite right because the designation stage which could attract to itself a local inquiry is omitted by Clause 4, but here I am able to give the complete answer to my hon. Friend's objections, because it is at the discretion of the local planning authority, or of my right hon. Friend, to request that the three stages under the 1947 Act be taken concurrently with one public inquiry. If they do this the result for the local inhabitants is the same under the 1947 Act and under Clause 4.
There must be a reference to my right hon. Friend if there is a substantial change of user in the development plan, and there must be a reference to my right hon. Friend for a compulsory purchase order.

Mr. Corfield: My only criticism of that argument is that there can arise under the second procedure a case in which there will be no public inquiry. I agree that there is a representation to my right hon. Friend, but there can arise a case where there is no public inquiry because the Acquisition of Land Act, 1946, limits the people who can object and who have a right to be heard. The Act limits it to people with an actual legal interest in the land. I do not think that that is enough.

Sir K. Joseph: I can meet that point. The owner or occupier of land must be heard at an inquiry when a compulsory

purchase order is sought. Inasmuch as local inhabitants are concerned they wilt have a chance either to make their case against an industrial user of the land when the development plan is published, or, if there is a departure from the development plan, that departure must be referred to my right hon. Friend who, in all ordinary circumstances, particularly when there is a hint of local objections, holds a local public inquiry.
My hon. Friends may say that all this is unnecessary and ask why a local planning authority, if it cannot get its development plan right because of the speed of technological change, should not designate all the areas that it might want to acquire. Let me explain that a local planning authority may be in a dilemma. It if waits until it has a firm proposition from an industrialist, it may be too late in designating an area and the industrialist may go elsewhere before the procedure of designation has occurred. If, however, a local planning authority designates in advance of its needs, that may be unfair to local land owners and some sort of planning blight may descend on the land which had been designated. I hope that I have met the point.
I should now like to meet the point that it is open to a local planning authority to decide for itself whether there is a sufficiently substantial departure from the development plan for it to refer the proposed departure to my right hon. Friend. This is a potential loophole because the local planning authority is the judge in its own cause, not so far as owner or occupier is concerned because of what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) told us but because of third parties who only have a chance to intervene in a proposed change of user in the development plan if the proposed change is referred to my right hon. Friend.
The local planning authority is bound to refer to the Minister before itself carrying out development, or before granting permission to someone else to carry out development, which represents a substantial departure from the development plan. As I say, it rests with the authority to decide whether a particular development represents a substantial departure. My right hon. Friend hopes that, in exercising its powers under the Bill, Lancashire.
will interpret this obligation strictly and will err on the side of referring too much to the Minister rather than too little.
I hope my hon. Friends will agree that I have answered the objections they made. They made a formidable case, but I hope that by dealing in detail with what they said I have satisfied them.
It remains for me to comment on the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South that this Clause means that planning which should be decided by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government might be decided more by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. That is not so because, as I have tried to explain, every decision that concerns a third party or owner must come to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government before it can be enforced.
I finish as I began, by repeating that the decision lies with the House, and asking hon. Members to bear in mind the fact that after hearing a full day's evidence a Select Committee decided in favour of Clause 4 and also that my right hon. Friend, after his own mature consideration, decided that there are no objections to the Clause and that in the circumstances Lancashire has made out a case for including it in the Bill.

Mr. Corfield: In view of my hon. Friend's speech, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read the Third time.

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (FULLBRIDGE, MALDON) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

8.20 p.m.

Commander Harry Pursey: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months."
The Bill seeks the authority of Parliament for one purpose only, that is, for the Essex County Council to reduce the headway under the new Fullbridge, over the River Chelmer, at Maldon, by not more than 13 inches. Clause 3 of the Bill reads:
Notwithstanding anything in any enactment or any agreement or any rule of law or otherwise to the contrary the Council in carrying out the reconstruction under the powers conferred on them by the Highways Act 1959 of the bridge over the River Chelmer known as Fullbridge in the borough of Maldon in the administrative county of Essex may reduce the headway under the bridge as existing at the date of the passing of this Act by not more than thirteen inches at any point between the abutments of the bridge.
The county council, however, has authority to build a new bridge with the same headway as the present one. Had it decided to do so, there would have been no need for the Bill, and no controversy about the new bridge as such.
Among the many reasons given for the decision of the council to reduce the headway—all of which are controversial and which I shall deal with in due course —the major one appears to be the question of cost. But a saving now of a few thousand pounds on a£54,000 bridge, by the reduction of the headway, may well cause additional serious flooding in the future and the additional loss of many thousands of pounds in the event of another great North Sea surge.
In my submission, the county council is taking an unnecessary gamble against three unpredictable elements, namely, an extraordinarily high spring tide, which may occur several times a year; a northwesterly gale, and a low barometer, a combination of which has on several occasions caused serious floods along the East Coast, particularly in 1928 and 1953, when they resulted in loss of life


and caused millions of pounds' worth of damage.
There are serious objections to the reduction of the headway of any bridge over a river, and to this one in particular, seeing that it is likely to be immersed in the river at extraordinarily high spring tides. Consequently, if a policy of the reduction of headway of bridges, especially with immersion in rivers, is to be accepted by the Ministry of Transport, it should be generally known by all up river freeholders that their properties may be depreciated or damaged if new bridges are built below them.
On the face of it, the Bill appears to be an innocent little Measure and this question of headway a simple matter, but certain important principles arise which require to be thrashed out in the public interest. Moreover, if the Bill had been allowed to go through without a debate, other councils might have been encouraged to promote similar Bills for the reduction of headway of bridges, to the detriment of their up-river property owners. First, there is the general principle that the headway of all new bridges should be increased and not reduced; secondly, the common law right of navigation on a river; thirdly, the principle that the future development of up-river land should not be restricted; fourthly, that compensation should be paid for depreciation of land values and loss of or damage to property; and, fifthly, that the flood risk should not be increased by a bridge becoming immersed in the river.
Unlike many Private Bills which come before this House, with little or no Ministerial responsibility, the Bill now before us has a large share of Ministerial responsibility, because the Ministry of Transport is to make a 60 per cent. grant, amounting to£32,000. There is also a petition against the Bill from an up-river landowner who will be adversely affected by the reduction of headway. This petition is more a matter for the Committee stage than for a Second Reading debate, but even if it had been withdrawn I should still have opposed the Second Reading on the general principles that I have mentioned.
Since the first principle, that the headway of all new bridges should be increased and not reduced, is generally accepted, I need not debate it at length. In the case of this bridge, however, con-

trary to the general principle of raising the deck the council has decided to reduce the headway of the old bridge, which was decided over eighty years ago.
The common law right of navigation is an important one, which should not lightly be interfered with. I assume that the council and the Ministry do not dispute that point. It would appear that the fear of claims for compensation from up-river freeholders caused the council to promote the Bill, in an attempt to make lawful what would otherwise be unlawful.
The council appears to have two arguments to try to justify interfering with the common law right of navigation. First, the small amount of traffic under the bridge and, secondly, that only one up-river landowner has objected to the Bill. The lighthearted attitude of the council to this common law right is indicated in a letter to me on 26th March, in which it stated:
The River Chelmer is a very small river and the Fullbridge carries a road over it in the Borough of Maldon, which is a comparatively small borough in the east of the county. The traffic under the bridge is negligible, consisting of a few small boats and pleasure craft, and at the present time it is impossible to proceed very far upstream of the bridge owing to the existence of a weir.
This is a typically inaccurate statement, because Beeleigh Weir is a mile above Fullbridge, which is no small distance.
The letter continues:
The present proposals have been approved by all persons and bodies (including the River Board, the Borough Council and the Ministry of Transport) and the sole objector is the petitioner.
I will not debate that statement except to say it is one thing not to object and another to approve. I suggest that the answer to the council's letter is, why should not the little man be able to sail his little boat up the little river and under the little bridge as he has done for two or three centuries?
In 1800, which is a day or two ago— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—this House passed an Act for the building of a new bridge. I will not quote the rather interesting statements which I have extracted from that Act, but I will simply make two relevant points. First, it was stated that they could not act without the authority of Parliament, which, fortunately, regarding the reduction of headway is still the same position


today. Secondly, there was a requirement for barges to pass under the bridge, in other words, in those days they were out to take care of the navigation of the river which, apparently, the local authorities are not keen to do at present.
This bridge, built in 1800, appears to have lasted for seventy-seven years. In 1877, when the present bridge was built barges were still going up to Beeleigh Mill and fishing, boating and bathing occurred above the bridge. Had the local authorities and the landowners concerned been river-minded, which they have not been, these conditions would have continued and may well have been improved. Instead, the river above the bridge has become a cesspit for about half-a-dozen sewers, including, at the bridge, the sewer from the Maldon Borough Council offices. Yet other people have to treat their sewage before allowing it to pass into a river. But even these conditions provide no reason why an increased stranglehold should be placed on the future development of up-river land.
The only occasion on which the tide and the headway of the bridge has been measured was on 14th April for the high tide. The Essex River Board, after making calculations and playing with its little instrument to get any answer that came out of the bag, stated that the tide was 12 feet 9 inches, that is, the level of the river, and the headway of the old bridge was only 2 feet 10 inches. Therefore, the question of inches is one of importance. At low water there is little depth and consequently larger craft have to use two tides, one to get to the bridge and the second to get under it. Without going into further technical details it is obvious that even now passage is restricted both at high water and low water and is only possible for certain limited periods of time.
Nevertheless, craft of four to five feet draught pass under the bridge and the previous owner of the petitioner's land moored launches off the quay wall and carried out repairs with a substantial crane which is still in existence. Disused barges are taken up river under the bridge to be broken up, albeit at some risk to life and limb. Why should this employment be denied to freeholders and tenants?
In recent years, three fairly large naval motor launches passed up river under the bridge, admittedly to be used as houseboats, and other motor launches, such as the "Red Devil," went up for pleasure purposes and for mooring up river. Obviously, a further reduction in the headway, even by only another 13 inches, would seriously restrict passage both up and down the river. There can be no doubt about this fact. The question which arises is, why should this traffic be further restricted and the owners endangered?
The third principle, that of aiding and not halting the further development of up-river properties on all rivers, is obviously an important matter for all parties concerned, owners, local authorities and ratepayers. Unfortunately, however, at Maldon it would appear that certain up-river land has been purchased with the object of sterilising it and the borough council is content to allow the whole area to continue to deteriorate.
There is a mile of riparian land on either side of the river between Full-bridge and Beeleigh Weir. At present, that land consists largely of saltings which are flooded by extraordinarily high water spring tides, but, obviously, it could be raised and developed in several ways, for example, for residential, recreational or even industrial purposes, to the advantage of Maldon, its residents, and the rates. Admittedly, on the south side there are a few houses, but on the north side there is only one old and somewhat dilapidated inn, "The Welcome Sailor", with which I shall deal later. It is the duty of both the county council and the borough council (a) not further to restrict up-river development by a lower bridge and (b) not to cause further deterioration in the value of up-river properties, but to facilitate development.
The fourth principle of compensation for depreciation in land values and loss of or damage to property, is also one which is generally accepted. Nevertheless, there is as yet no compensation clause in the Bill, I am informed that the county council has indicated in writing to the petitioner that a new Clause will be added to the Bill in Committee, although this Clause has not yet been agreed with the petitioner. If the


council had not agreed to include a compensation Clause, I would have put down a second Amendment stating:
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert provision for adequate compensation to be paid in the case of anyone adversely affected by the Bill.
Such a compensation Clause is necessary for the future safeguard of all up-river landowners on all rivers.
The fifth principle I am arguing is that the flooding risk of a river should not be increased by a new bridge which is to be immersed in the river. So far, I assume that both sides, the promoters of the Bill and the opponents, have been on common ground and accepted the general principles, although at times arguing a contrary case. When we consider the increased flooding risk, however, although both sides may agree in principle, we are not on common ground because there is a serious absence of official factual information and even more serious conflict of evidence. What is also remarkable is the amount and weight of factual information which can be called against the council's theoretical information and lack of factual information.
Several persons with an intimate know-lodge of the bridge over many years contend that the Ministry's version is wrong arid that the bridge has (a) been immersed on numerous occasions and (b) at times to a depth of several inches and even over 1 ft. If this is correct, the new bridge will be immersed for 2 ft. or more. The Ministry argues that as the water area under the bridge will be increased by 10 per cent. by setting back the piers, there is no increased risk. This remains to be seen, because rivers do not always work to the calculations of officials. Both in the 1928 and the 1953 great floods, the experts, with their little instruments and calculations, were proved hopelessly wrong. Once the North Sea starts to flood, we cannot stop it with a calculating machine, a broom or a bit of putty.
The Ministry also argues that it can find no witnesses of the bridge's immersion. This may be a matter of question. Asked, "Have you ever seen the river up to the bridge?" a person may answer, "No", because he has never looked at the bridge at extraordinarily high water, spring tides. Moreover, the 1953 surge and other high tides were at night, and

not many people would be concerned at that time about an old bridge condemned twenty years ago. They would be more likely to be concerned about the safety of life and property.
The two more important conflicts of argument are, first, the number of times the undercart of the old bridge has been immersed and, secondly, to what depth it has been immersed. These important points require some serious consideration and discussion. The Ministry's argument is that the immersions have been few—in fact only two in forty years—and a matter of a few inches. Opponents of the Bill argue that the immersions have been many and of several inches. The crux of the problem, as I said before, is a matter of inches, because the Bill deals with 13 in. The Ministry accepts the bridge was immersed in the 1928 and 1953 great North Sea surges but argues that it was only a few inches. It further accepts that under similar circumstances the bridge would be immersed by about 18 in.
The logical development is that in worse conditions, as there may well be, there would be worse immersion. Unfortunately, no records have been taken of the height of the tide and the headway of the bridge at Fullbridge, and all the figures of the Ministry of Transport are theoretical calculations, and a large number of them differ considerably from the personal observations of several people.
A further difficulty is that although certain parties are concerned with either the bridge or the river, no authority is concerned with both the bridge and the river. The county council is the bridge authority and the Ministry is that of transport; but neither is interested in the river, or has any information about it, and both argue quite rightly that they are not concerned with drainage or floods. The Essex River Board is the river authority and the Ministry is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but neither has any information about the bridge and neither is interested in it.
The local authority is the Maldon Borough Council, but it has no information about the river, and it suggested to me that tidal information should be obtained from Harwich, which is wrong. The council does not even know where to get its own information. The nearest Admiralty tide recording station for the


naval tide tables used all over the world was Sheerness—and it may still be, but the Admiralty has evacuated Sheerness —with a constant for Maldon, but Sheerness is on the south side of the Thames. In fact, the relevant recording station is at Southend, under the Port of London Authority, which issues the flooding warnings for the Thames and East Coast, including the River Chelmer and Fullbridge.
Another complication is the number of tide tables. Locally, a tide table is issued based on London Bridge. In addition, the local paper, the Maldon Standard publishes another tide table based on Liverpool. As I have said, the Admiralty tables are based on Sheerness. Therefore, "you pays your money and you takes your choice"; if you toss the coin up, it will come down heads or tails, but you have still got a chance with the three-card trick.
I will pass on now to some of the evidence which is available, but I shall restrict myself to some half-dozen statements from persons with first-hand knowledge, to show the difference between actual facts and the river board's theoretical calculations. Statements from four of the persons were recently taken by a solicitor. I have them here, but I can take their main point without spending time on reading the whole of their statements.
First, the family—five people—of the previous tenant of the "Welcome Sailor", which is adjacent to the bridge, said that during their residence the inn was frequently flooded out to a depth of several feet, so often that it was accepted as common practice. To relate the "Welcome Sailor" to the bridge, I point out that when the headway was measured at 2 ft. 3 ins, the water was lapping the quay of the "Welcome Sailor". Consequently, anything above 2 ft. 3 ins. in the "Welcome Sailor" should mean that the bridge is immersed.
In the 1928 big surge one man helped salvage some of the hundreds of empty beer barrels washed off the brewery quay upstream and jammed against the bridge because there was no headway for them to go under. This man was paid 10s. for his services. There are other men alive who helped him, or witnessed the salvage of some of the barrels. The

others went out to sea. Incidentally, the brewery then built a cage for their barrels, and they are still caged in to prevent them being washed up against the bridge on the flood tide and then down the river and out to sea on the ebb tide. On this occasion, the river is reported as having risen a good 12 ins. up the bridge.
Secondly, another person with intimate knowledge of the river states that in the fifteen years 1940–55 there were over half a dozen exceptionally high tides with serious flooding and the bridge immersed, of which the river board appears to have heard only of the one, namely the 1953 great tide.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I do not want to spoil the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I should be grateful if he would give us the names of these people, because we have tried to find evidence along these same lines and have not succeeded. If he will be kind enough to mention the names, we shall be glad to check up on this.

Commander Pursey: I will, naturally, consider that with the people concerned, but I thought that everybody made up their minds lock, stock and barre1,100 per cent., that it was no good going on with the argument. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows, he and I have had quite an argumentative, but I hope friendly, correspondence about this for the last two months. We have a vast collection of figures. It wants an expert to relate some of them together. I am trying to avoid figures in order not to make it too complicated for the House tonight.
The third case is this. Customers of the "Welcome Sailor" recall that on one occasion during the rationing period—and that would not be the 1953 great tide—water was up to the mantelpiece, a matter of some 4 ft. and that, therefore, the bridge was immersed to the 1 ft. I mentioned earlier. Someone in thigh boots went to the cupboard, because it was suddenly realised that it might be found that the rations had gone down the scupper. As the door of the cupboard was opened the ration tin floated out.
The fourth instance takes us to the 1953 great tide. The Ministry disputes that the temporary bridge and its


approaches were flooded, yet at least three persons have been found—and there may be others—who say that this was the case. The county council's own book on the great tide, a volume of about 800 pages of which the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, refers, on page 136, to
News of flooding at the bottom of Maldon Hill at Fullbridge.
One person has stated that he saw both approaches to the temporary bridge, and the bridge itself flooded right through as one sheet of water. I know that that is disputed. The argument there is that it has never been up like that but, in addition, two London photographers, who have no vested interest in Maldon, have described how they drove through water on the bridge and its approaches.
Here is the fifth case. The owner of a caravan on the "Welcome Sailor" quay has described how, on this occasion in 1953, his caravan was flooded out, and he found himself in 4 ft. of water. For decency's sake, I shall not relate what happened to his wife, or how he got her out of bed. If that is correct, the river would have been 1 ft. over the bridge. The man's report on his caravan is supported by the fact that the insurance company paid out for the damage. Whatever other arguments the authorities will throw back at me, I hope that it will not be suggested that an insurance company paid out for flood damage if the caravan was not flooded.
I turn to the sixth case. The river board contends that in 1959 the river did not rise up to the bridge. I put down a Question to the Minister of Agriculture, who replied that the town quay had not been flooded. The plain fact is that down there they do not know what is going on, and do not care. It is understood that if there are exceptionally high waters the area will be flooded. Moreover, regularly in September the police put up a big red warning notice so that people will be warned of possible floods, when they should either evacuate their properties or take refuge in the rooms upstairs. I have asked the police to give me a list of the properties in the areas concerned, but they tell me that they have not a list. I admit that there are a lot of properties around Fullbridge, and that the majority of Maldon is up the hill.
The flooding is obviously on the river banks, and is, and can be in the future, a far more serious problem than is appreciated by the local authority. Men who work on the riverside claim that the bridge was immersed during both the March and September equinoxial gales, and that in recent years the bridge has often been immersed. I have told the Minister that, and I have told the local authority, but they say that the bridge was not immersed last year. That is another example of a conflict of opinion.
Now for the seventh case. A person with first-hand experience of the river wrote to me:
Of course it is stupid to lower Fullbridge 13 in. One has only to witness the excess freshwaters"—
That is a new point—the freshwater floods coming down the river as distinct from the saltwater floods coming up it:
with a north-westerly gale and high tide to realise that the present height is sometimes inadequate to let the water through. I have seen from my window, the water pouring under the present bridge with no clearance
Another writer tells a very good story about what happens when one goes bathing as a result of the river being turned into a cesspool. I think it is only decent that I should omit that as well, because, quite frankly, that river stinks.
The eighth case is this. Another writer states:
I have found that upon certain high water spring tides it is possible to shoot or drift under Fullbridge in a dinghy provided one crouches down in the boat"—
like the Redskins one reads about in books.
It would, therefore, appear that any lowering of the bridge will make it even more difficult to pass under, on the top of a tide, as headroom will become even more restricted; and, in the event of a tidal surge, it could well act as a form of dam, thus aggravating such flooding as may occur in the Fullbridge area.
That, in the words of "one who knows", is the picture in a nutshell—a lower bridge and increased flooding.
I submit that people do not make such statements with graphic details unless they are true. They have no axe to grind. Moreover, they cannot all be wrong. I hope, therefore, that I have given sufficient information to show that the bridge has been immersed on several occasions to a depth of several inches


and the problem is more serious than the Ministry of Transport, the county council and the Essex River Board appreciate.
There is another important point to consider in connection with this illogical idea of lowering Fullbridge. Since the 1953 great tide, the Essex River Board has increased the height of the river defences, the barriers on the river banks, on the quays of certain firms just below Fullbridge. Why this has been done on some and not on others I do not know. It looks as if there may be preferential treatment but I shall not suggest for what reason.

Mr. Brian Harrison: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman specify the firms and which parts of the bank have been preferentially treated?

Commander Pursey: I am rather interested in that intervention because one of them happens to be the hon. Member's "boss", the recently elected Chairman of the Maldon Conservative Party, John Sadd.

Mr. Harrison: rose—

Commander Pursey: Just a moment. I was hoping that the hon. Member and I would have a bit of argument about this. After all, this is the hon. Member's constituency; it is not mine. I will give him a lead. If he asks me why I am dealing with the bridge, the answer is because he would not. I do not blame him for that. I have been trying not to be technical, because this is rather a technical subject, but I doubt whether you have followed it up to now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that when he says "you" he means me. I have followed it perfectly.

Commander Pursey: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Naturally, I would not suggest that you had not followed it. But the hon. Gentleman, having contained himself until now, wants to get in on two or three points.
I can give him the figures. As a matter of fact, there is no reason for me to do so because, in the last paragraph of the letter on four pages of foolscap which the Parliamentary Secretary sent

to me. the hon. Gentleman in his own fair hand added at the bottom the words:
I am also sending a copy of this letter to Brian Harrison because of his constituency interest.
That was obviously the right thing to do, and I am quite happy about that. But let us have it on the record. When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) asks me the names of the firms which have had their barricades raised, he knows the details because he has the list and he has the heights.

Mr. Harrison: rose—

Commander Pursey: I want to finish one point at a time.
Since we are dealing with this point, Mr. Sadd has a large timber shed and usually, in a big flood, it is flooded from behind and the timber floats about up to the "Railway Bell" where, with the water from other places, the level has been up to the counter. Many people in Maldon today are asking whether the timber shed barrier has been raised so high—I shall come to this point—to keep the water out or to prevent John Sadd's trees and timber floating out to the North Sea.
The funny thing is that a moat has not been built around John Sadd's timber yards. The barrier has not been completed either upstream or downstream. Consequently, one wonders whether the barrier is there as a protection against the river flooding the quay itself which is still liable to flooding elsewhere, whether it has been raised to keep the river out where it can come in from the other side or from the back, or whether it is there to prevent the timber floating off and out into the North Sea as the brewery beer barrels did in 1928. Having made that point, I am quite happy to give way.

Mr. Harrison: Will the hon. and gallant Member be prepared to repeat those allegations that he makes about preferential treatment outside the House?

Commander Pursey: You are the one who led me into this.

Mr. Harrison: Did you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, lead the hon. and gallant Member into it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) has the Floor.

Commander Pursey: If the hon. Member wants me to go on and deal with these bad manners and bad businesses, I am quite prepared to do so. In order to satisfy the hon. Member, I am quite happy to go to Maldon and for him to arrange a meeting so that we may debate the subject of the reduction of the headway of Fullbridge at a public meeting of his constituents so that they may have the advantage of expressing their opposition to the reduction of the headway.
Under our Parliamentary procedure, quite rightly, the only people who can object to the Bill and the reduction of the headway are landowners above the bridge. In order to be quite clear about John Sadd, I went to see him in his office. He told me that he is one of the owners of land above the bridge. Has he bought that land to develop it or has he bought it to sterilise it? If we want to go on with this, it is wide open. Let us have a public meeting in Maldon. The hon. Member can select his own chairman. Obviously, it cannot be the chairman of the local Conservative Association because he is an interested person. The hon. Member and I can toss for whether he moves the motion for the reconstruction of the bridge first and I oppose it, or whether I move the motion against it and he opposes that.
Let me get back to the question of the barriers. Some of these new defences are higher than the underpart of the bridge. There is, therefore, the somewhat illogical position of raising defences to keep the river out and then lowering the bridge below the defence level for immersion in the river. The major question is: what will be the height of the next serious North Sea surge at Fullbridge? That is the 60,000 dollar question. No one can answer it. It is a matter of pure speculation.
The 1928 surge was 6 ft. and the 1953 surge 6 ft. 7½in. above the predicted levels for the day at the tide recording stations at London Bridge and Southend. I do not argue that the extra 6 ft. of water at Southend was carried through to Maldon, but who know how much will be carried through next time, with the sea walls and other defences being heightened and sealed and the only openings being the estuaries and the rivers?
We have as a comparison the greatest river in the country, namely, the nearby

Thames, with the same warning station at Southend. The Thames authorities consider that the defences should be raised by 2 to 3 ft. for the whole length of the river up to Teddington Weir. Even so, they state that
to afford complete protection, the defences would have to be raised at least 6 ft.
Moreover, it is reported that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has set up a panel of consulting engineers to consider the alternative of a movable barrier near the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel at a cost of£10 million, which is about the same cost as raising the defences of the Thames. We have, therefore, the farcical position of a 6 ft. increase in the defences of the Thames being considered at the same time as the lowering of Fullbridge by 13 in. It would seem that the Ministry of Transport ought to refer the Fullbridge problem to the Thames consulting engineers for a report.
Among the arguments for not raising the deck of the new bridge by 13 ins. are these. First, to avoid a hump, and, secondly, the approach would have to be raised for some distance, property frontages would be affected and compensation would have to be paid. Let me deal with the first of these. On the south side the approach is to be improved for 37 yards. Any increase in the height would improve the approach to the steep Market Hill. One would go off the bridge, down the switchback and then one would face the steep hill. On the north side the approach is to be improved for 60 yards and an increase of 13 in. would be 1 in. in 5 yards, which is practically negligible.
Now let me deal with the frontages. At the southern approach the council has purchased the land on both sides of the road, so that there is no frontage problem at that end. At the northern approach, on the eastern side of the road, there is a wide open space to the mill and the garden of Fullbridge House. On the western side there are, admittedly, the two inns, the "Welcome Sailor" and the "White Hart", and a few old cottages. There all get flooded, however, and are due for demolition and rebuilding at higher levels which could well be adjusted to a higher approach road with the deck of the bridge raised.
A question which arises is whether the problem of compensation for the


"Welcome Sailor" is a major factor in the difference of cost in the alternatives of reducing the headway or raising the deck. I have reliable information from more than one source that, first, the river flows into the inn at practically all extraordinary high-water spring tides; secondly, water has on occasion risen to the mantelpiece in the kitchen, which is 4 feet above floor level; and, thirdly, very little trade is done and for some years the brewers and not the tenant have paid the rates, licence, etc., and have charged no rent.
So that I should not be taken up on that by the hon. Member for Maldon, to try to get factual information one way or the other I wrote to the chairman of the brewery company stating that I had been given this information and asking whether he would like to comment. After two letters, I have received no reply. I am, however, forming no conclusion on that.
If these reports are correct, the valuation of the inn cannot be much. The general impression locally is that the brewers are only waiting for the new bridge to be built to obtain as much compensation as possible and then to demolish or dispose of the property. There is an idea locally that the "Welcome Sailor" is protected either as an ancient monument or is listed as of historical or architectural interest, but Questions to Ministers have elicited negative replies. So it simply stands on its own foundations, which are far from solid. I would not like to carry the matter any further than the suggestion which was made to me not to lean against it too firmly. Are we to see the headway of the bridge reduced partly because of the low level of the "Welcome Sailor" and then, when the new bridge is built, find a new property erected some feet higher which would have enabled the deck of the bridge to be raised?
The question of frontages is dealt with by different authorities in different ways. Recently, however, there has been the announcement of how the London County Council is to deal with the approaches to Waterloo Bridge. Although properties in the vicinity are listed as being of architectural or historical interest, four of them will be demolished. The cost of terminating the tenancies and

of demolition work will be£25,000. I admit that Waterloo Bridge is somewhat more important than Fullbridge at Maldon, although Fullbridge at Maldon is of importance to Maldon because it is the first bridge up the river from the River Blackwater and it has to carry alternative traffic to the coast instead of it all going through Chelmsford and Colchester.
I assume that the hon. Member for Maldon will have something to say and that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will reply. I hope that, in addition to arguing that the bridge should be built, for there can be no argument against it—the council could have done it off its own bat—they will also give the reasons why it was decided to reduce the headway instead of increase the height of the deck, as well as deal with the five principles whch I have argued. Almost every independent authority on bridges would advocate that generally, and certainly in the case of this bridge, the deck should be raised and not the headway reduced.
I wish to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary the following four questions of which I have given him notice in writing. First, when is the compensation Clause to be added to the Bill? Secondly, how many bridges in the country have been immersed? How many to be immersed have been approved, and is this to be the future policy? Thirdly, what is the difference in cost if the deck is raised, instead of the headway being reduced? Fourthly, what is the compensation which is being discussed for the "Welcome Sailor" in both cases, that is, if the headway is reduced or if the deck is raised?
After dealing with this for two months, and going down there twice and dealing with much correspondence from people in Maldon and with the various authorities concerned, the whole thing still remains a mystery to me. I speak with some technical and nautical language, after thirty years in the Navy. All one is concerned about at sea is the lowest low water. All one is concerned about with a bridge is the minimum headway. In some of the correspondence there has been talk about the average height. If there is to be an average, and that is to be the height decided upon, what happens when a maximum comes along? A maximum waits for no one.
I end with this question: is it worth the gamble of saving a few thousand pounds now by reducing the headway when this may result in additional flooding, further losses and damage to property, and, it may be, risk to life on a future occasion?

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I have listened with considerable interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey). As he said in his final remarks, he was talking about this matter with experience and knowledge of thirty years at sea. It enables him to assess, as he thinks, the situation at Maldon. It would, I should have thought, have given him some knowledge in sifting the information from people living in the vicinity of a waterfront.
I, of course, have known this bridge for a long time and known the people down there. Before I come to the main points which I want to make, I want to say most emphatically that I very much regret the accusations and imputations of one of his remarks, not only against somebody who happens to be an acquaintance or friend of mine, but against other firms who have riparian rights and advantages farther down the river. I think that on further reflection the hon. and gallant Gentleman will regret that he made them. At any rate, I hope he will.
The bridge with which this Bill is concerned at Fullbridge is a necessity for the Borough of Maldon, not for the reason which the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned, because it was necessary to syphon off trade through Colchester and Chelmsford or make it easier to get between Colchester and Chelmsford. The line between Colchester and Chelmsford is well to the north of the Borough of Maldon where this bridge is.
It is an important bridge because it connects Maldon with Heybridge, which is the industrial suburb of the Borough of Maldon. It also connects with the rich farming land to the north. The old iron bridge across the river was declared unsafe during or just before the last war and traffic was diverted to a temporary bridge built for the purpose. This temporary bridge, which has an

S-bend at its beginning and its end, is dangerous. It is a great surprise to me that there have not been unpleasant accidents there, such as a bus going over as it approached from either the Market Hill or the lower end of the bridge.
The temporary bridge has been condemned. Before the war plans were approved to replace the old bridge, but owing to the abandonment of all such projects when hostilities commenced the temporary bridge has been used ever since. A great deal of much heavier traffic uses the bridge today. To cope with that traffic it is necessary to have a bridge of Ministry of Transport standards capable of bearing the loads of modern traffic. This would mean a new bridge made of prestressed concrete built with thirteen inches greater depth of construction. If such a bridge is to be built the approaches will also have to be raised. That will involve alterations to properties which are close to the roadway and also the raising of three access roads.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East that the actual increase in gradient would be very slight, but the raising of the roadway and the building up of the walls of some of the old buildings close to the road would cause considerable difficulties and it would involve considerable damages. No doubt there is something to be said for having to climb about four feet out of the bar of a public house after a night out, and that is exactly what would have to be done if the roadway were raised, because "The Welcome Sailor" would then be four feet below the footpath.
The only practical solution seems to be to lower the bridge the requisite amount, and that means that there would be less headway between the water level and the bridge. There are not many riparian owners above the bridge, but all, with one exception, have agreed to this. It is an important point also that the sailing clubs which use the waters round Maldon have agreed, in view of the fact that they do not use this reach because it is unsuitable and, indeed, dangerous for sailing.
The hon. and Gallant Member for Hull East referred to barge traffic on the river. I have checked up and I have talked with a gentleman who has sailed regularly on the river since about 1907. He


tells me that the last barge to go up the river was the "Eva Annie" of 100 tons, and she went through on 23rd February, 1922. The hon. and gallant Member referred to wheat and so on going up to Beeleigh Mill. That is also rather out of date, because that mill was burned down in 1876.
The county council, however, has taken into account the fact that there are sailing clubs in the area which might want to use the river, but only one objector has been found, a man who owns an area of land for which the county council has given permission for use as a caravan site. As yet, there is no town map for Maldon, but I am informed that this area may be scheduled for industrial use. Nevertheless, it is improbable that permission to use the objector's actual land for industrial purposes will be granted, unless he can make satisfactory arrangements for improved road access and loading, unloading and car parking.
Just to make sure that nobody suffers financially from these proposals, the county council is prepared to insert a Clause to give adequate compensation to riparian owners for any decrease in the value of their properties by the bridge which is attributable to the reduction in headway.
The hon. Member said that at times the approaches to the bridge had been flooded and that the water level had come up to the level of the underpart of the bridge. It is difficult for instruments to measure the exact height of the water in flood time, but the records of the Essex River Board—which is responsible for protection against flooding—show that that has occurred only on occasions of exceptional surges experienced on the east coast during times like the 1953 flood.
In any event, even if the bridge were lowered, the piers are to be moved further back and there will be a clearer run for the water to get away under the bridge. The area under the bridge will be increased by about 90 sq. ft., or about 9 per cent. The river board is quite satisfied that the proposed bridge will not adversely affect tidal or fresh water flooding in that area.
Not only is the Bill supported by the vast majority of the people who live in Maldon and its environs, but we have had considerable difficulty trying to find opponents of it, with the exception of the one objector who has been mentioned. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that this is a non-party Measure and is supported by the Essex County Council, which is Labour-controlled, and has the full support of the Maldon Borough Council, which was Labour-controlled until a few days ago. The last mayor, a Labour mayor, wrote to the hon. Member, as headlined in the Maldon and Burnham Standard, "Don't delay the bridge scheme" and tried to persuade the hon. Member not to go on with these objections because it was regarded as in the benefit of the people of Maldon that the bridge should be built as soon as possible.
The hon. and gallant Member mentioned five points. First, the general headway. The fact is that that bridge is not used, except that since the end of the war it has been used occasionally for a barge to come up to be broken up, or, in one case, for a boat to go alongside where the crane is on the one objector's piece of land. That crane is there solely to remove the auxiliary engine from a boat and is not there as part of an industrial shipyard. The river, with its piles and other hazards, is not used, and is not of sufficient depth to be safe for navigational purposes. When it is necessary to move a barge up there for holding and so on, it will still be possible for it to be done under the new bridge by using two tides in the same way as is done at present. So much for the principle of rights of navigation and for the general headway. I hope that the House will take note of the extra area under the bridge.
The hon. and gallant Member mentioned the future of the up river landowners. They have been consulted. They understood fully what was involved in the scheme, and, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, there was only one objector. Compensation, which was the hon. and gallant Gentleman's fourth point, is dealt with in the Clause which it is intended to propose at a later stage should be added to the Bill.
The fifth point related to the immersion of the bridge in the event of flooding. The House ought to be clear that


the immersion to which the hon. and gallant Member referred is merely the immersion of the supports and not the surface of the bridge.

Commander Pursey: I had made up my mind not to intervene, but I must get this right. There is a question of the soffits and a question of the surface of the bridge. When I said that the bridge had been submerged, I meant that the water had been up to the under-part of the bridge, but I made it clear that in 1953 there was a sheet of water from one approach across the temporary bridge to the other approach. We must get that clear, because that is in dispute.

Mr. Harrison: I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon. I understood him to mean the surface of the bridge. As the hon. and gallant Member said, it is very much in dispute whether the roadway of the bridge has ever been flooded, even in the floods of 1953. All the evidence that I have shows that it has not been so flooded. The hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted what two photographers from London had seen. I leave it to the House to decide.
I will not detain the House any longer. The five points that I have made in reply to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, the story of the importance of this bridge, the care which the county council has taken, and the desire of the people of Maldon that this bridge should be put in, ought to convince the House not to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and to pass the Bill.

9.34 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): In the year 991, which is a long time ago, there occurred an event which has been subsequently recorded, so I am informed, in fable and song as The First Battle of Maldon. I have obtained some information about it, and I mention it to the House because it is appropriate to the debate that we have had tonight.
According to the Oxford Companion to English Literature, The Battle of Maldon is a poem in Old English, perhaps of the tenth century, dealing with the raid of the Northmen under Anlaf, at Maldon in Essex, in 991. The North-men were drawn up on the shore of the

Black water. The ealdorman Byrhtnoth, the friend of Aelfric, exhorted his men to stand firm. I can cast my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) for that rÔle. An offer by the herald of the Northmen that their attack should be bought off by payment of tribute was scornfully rejected. The fight was delayed by the rising tide, which separated the two armies. Then Byrhtnoth was slain with a poisoned spear and some of his men fled. A fresh attack was led by Aelfwine, son of Aelfric. Godric fell. The end of the poem is lost.
I may have gone back a long way in history, but there are certain parallels between that historic event and the second battle of Maldon, which the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) has been fighting for some months against the almost united opposition of Maldon, led by the mayor and corporation and my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. I conceive my duty tonight to be to give what advice I can upon two matters—first, whether or not it is right that, in principle at any rate, the House should accept the proposal in the Bill that the headroom on the new bridge should be reduced notwithstanding that some of the riparian owners may be prejudicially affected and, secondly—and it was on this point that I first came into contact with the hon. and gallant Member—whether or not it is right that a large sum of public money should be paid to the Essex County Council which will be building the bridge, before we are absolutely sure that the calculations that have been made as to the risk of the bridge being flooded are proved to be correct or incorrect.
The brief recent history of the bridge, as my hon. Friend has said, is that it is on the class II road between Maldon and Colchester. Before the war it was fairly clear that the old bridge was becoming defective and it was decided that it should be replaced. In 1939 it was intended to make a grant, but because of the war this was stopped. The bridge was closed to traffic because it speedily became unable to support the traffic passing across it, and a temporary bridge was put up in 1943. This bridge is still being used. Both bridges lie at the foot of a steep hill on the south, but


I am told that the temporary bridge is badly aligned, because of the two S-bends to which reference has already been made. The temporary bridge is devoted entirely to a carriageway, and it is possible for pedestrians to cross the old bridge. According to the records the traffic over the bridge is not heavy and the accident record is not bad.
In 1958 we were approached by the Essex County Council which said that it wished to replace the bridge, and asked for a grant, and in April, 1959, we promised that we would give the council a grant of£32,000 towards the estimated total cost of about£54,000 for the supply of a new bridge.
I now come to the first issue upon which I wish to offer some advice to the House, namely, the question raised directly by the Bill as to the common law rights which are being affected by Clause 3. Under the Coast Protection Act, 1949, limitations are placed on the rights of people to carry out certain types of work, in, upon, under or over tidal waters. Under Section 34 of the Act the Minister of Transport was approached to give his consent for the headroom of the new bridge to be 13 inches below that of the existing one.
As is our normal practice, as we are obliged to do by statute, we advertised the proposal and consulted a number of interested bodies. At that stage we had no objections, and accordingly, in November, 1958, the Minister gave his consent to the lowering of the headroom. As a result of its inquiries the council decided, none the less, that it was not covered in common law, that is to say that although the Minister had given his consent to the work done and for the headroom being lowered, his consent would be no statutory bar to a possible action at common law by someone who might be affected, for example, the riparian owners upstream.
Accordingly the council approached all the owners of land upstream of the bridge to see whether they had any objection. One owner did object, so I am advised, on the ground that the value of his land would be depreciated. The council therefore decided that it must seek to promote a Bill in Parliament, and the Bill before the House tonight is that Bill.
I should next tell the House that the issue which it has to decide is whether or not it is right that the possible interests of people upstream should be affected by the legislation which we are asked to agree. I need only remark on this that it is, of course, quite the normal practice for the House to give a Second Reading to a Private Bill of this kind affecting private interests and to leave it to colleagues sitting in Committee to decide whether any limitation should be placed on that cover, whether any safeguards should be wrtten in for the protection of individuals or whether any provision should be made as to compensation. But as the main issue before the House tonight is whether or not that common law right should be overridden in this connection, I must advise the House that I think this a proposal which we ought to accept and to agree to.
I come next to the second issue, whether or not it is right that a considerable sum of public money should be spent by way of grant to the county council for the building of this bridge unless we are absolutely satisfied that, when erected, the bridge will not be subject to flooding in such a way as either to render it useless for the purpose of free passage across the river, or in such a way that it might be damaged and perhaps collapse into the river. That was the issue on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman first approached me. I am grateful to him for having done so, because I think it quite right that a matter of this kind should be investigated. He gave me certain information which I passed on to my Department, and a very full investigation has been made of this matter. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman of that. I have personally seen to it that a proper study was made of all the relevant facts, figures and data which he gave to us.
An investigation was conducted on the spot by two senior officials of the Ministry of transport. They interviewed a large number of people in the district. They interviewed members of the county council and other local authorities and members of the river board. They also interviewed a number of local residents, and all had something interesting to tell them. I must say now that on the issue of whether or not it is right that public money should be spent on the building of this new bridge to replace the old


one, we are satisfied beyond any doubt —I ask the hon. and gallant Member to accept it—that this is the right course to take and that many of the fears he has expressed are unlikely—I put it no higher—to come to pass.
I must next tell the House that the principal responsibility for keeping the river safe and protecting the land above the banks from flooding is that of the river board. The board has informed us that it is completely satisfied with the design of this new bridge. It is convinced that if the new bridge is built in this way and according to these designs, there will be no increased risk of flooding. I think that fairly powerful evidence.
If the people who stand to lose from the compensation point of view, the river board, are satisfied that the design is right, I think it probably is so. If they had any doubt at all there is no question that they would instantly have objected to it and probably have been petitioners against the Bill. The county council, as the promoters of the Bill and builders of the bridge, obviously are satisfied. The bridge engineers of my right hon. Friend's Department have gone exhaustively into the question of the design with the question of flooding in mind and are equally satisfied that it is a satisfactory one. The Royal Fine Art Commission has had a look at the design and has no objection to raise on amenity or aesthetic grounds.
Finally, I say a word or two about some of the criticisms raised by the hon. and gallant Member. His first point was that in the past the present bridge, which has a headroom 13 in. higher than the new bridge will have, has frequently been immersed at 'times of flooding. He said he had found a number of people who say this, but so far he has not disclosed their names, despite the request I made when he was speaking. I am afraid I cannot argue with him about that. I can only say that from inquiries I made, except for one occasion in 1953 about which there is no dispute between us, the bridge has never been immersed to anyone's knowledge and belief. Beyond that I cannot go. It is possible that on other occasions than in 1953 the water may have come close to the soffit of the bridge, but scarcely anyone was prepared to say he had actually seen the soffit being lapped with water.
In regard to the water level generally at this point, it is important to realise that in some places the banks are much lower than the soffit of the old bridge or that proposed for the new bridge. It would follow that the banks would flood before the bridge would be lapped or covered by water. Even if the soffit of the new bridge were immersed from time to time, the advice available to me, the best I can get, is that it would not be harmful to the new bridge, which is to be made of pre-stressed concrete, nor would it cause more flooding to the surrounding land than would be the case with the old bridge.
The reason for this is important, and I beg the hon. and Gallant Member to understand and appreciate our point of view. The cross-sectional area of the waterway when the new bridge is built will be at least 10 per cent. greater than at the old bridge. That is to say, there will be more space for water to pass through the opening. The reason is that the piers of the temporary bridge—which, we must remember, has been there since 1943—will be moved when the new bridge is completed. At the same time the abutments of the new bridge will be set back compared with the abutments of the present and the old bridge. This means that over all there should be an additional 10 per cent. area available for the same volume of water.
The hon. and gallant Member suggested that we ought not to lower the soffit of the new bridge but to keep to the present level, in other words, to raise by 13 ins. the level of the new bridge. I am advised that to do so would cost at least£8,500, but more probably it would cost something like£15,000, or even more. Over and above that expense in money there would be a considerable loss of time, about nine months. The reason why this extra expenditure would have to be incurred is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon said, that to raise the level of the bridge the approaches would have to be raised, particularly on the north side of the river. On the northern approach, the road is of insufficient width to enable the raising of the level and still to leave at both sides of the raised embankment sufficient room for people to pass on foot. Certainly there would not be room for vehicles to pass.
This would, therefore, mean possibly some property demolition but in any event a considerable amount of extra accommodation work to be done, and in all probability a good deal of difficulty in compensating the people who live in or own property nearby. For those reasons we have come to the conclusion that this bridge, as proposed to be built by the county council, should be built. The county council and the borough council firmly favour our continuing with the scheme as it is proposed.

Commander Pursey: Does the hon. Member agree that only on one corner out of the four does the question of frontage arise, and that is the corner occupied by the "Welcome Sailor", which is about four feet below the level it ought to have? Consequently, demolition and development there would be in everybody's interests, and without it we are likely to have a new bridge and then a new building on the "Welcome Sailor" site above the new bridge.

Mr. Hay: I cannot agree. On the other side of the "Welcome Sailor" public house there is a farm. If the level were to be raised, as the hon. and gallant Member has suggested, and an embankment were built to carry the carriageway, not only would that cause problems for the "Welcome Sailor" public house and the other public house next door but, where the farm stands on the other side of the road, there would be the problem of lorries coming out of the grounds of that farm, with a steep gradient to climb and a sharp left-hand turn at the top to enter the carriageway. I am advised that it would be extremely dangerous and that it would be very difficult for a lorry driver driving a laden lorry to pull up to the carriageway.

Commander Pursey: There is a large open space and then the corner of Full-bridge House. There is no question of lorries coming on to the road. They do not come out that way but go round the flour mill, at the back.

Mr. Hay: I do not think there is much point in the hon. and gallant Member and I trying to argue this matter across the Floor of the House. I said that on the advice available to me there is a difficulty about accepting the suggestion which he has made.
I have tried to cover all the points raised in the time available to me, but this is the sort of matter for which the procedure of the House on Private Bills is admirably suited. The hon. and gallant Member and any other hon. Member interested can no doubt spend many interesting hours with the plans and the maps spread out and with a whole sheaf of photographs. We could argue interminably about this, but that is not the job of the House; it is a matter for our colleagues, who will meet on the Bill upstairs. All we have to decide tonight is whether, in principle, it is right that Clause 3, which is the crux of the Bill, should be approved in general terms. We must leave it to the Committee on the Bill to write in any safeguards and to undertake any investigations it wishes.
That is the course which I invite the House to take. The hon. Member, for the best reasons in the world, has felt it right and his duty to have this very searching investigation made. I have personally seen that it has been made, and I am personally satisfied that the proposals in the Bill and the proposals made by the county council for the building of this new bridge are proposals which the House should endorse. I therefore invite the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Commander Pursey: Under the circumstances, as we have taken the right and proper means of ventilating this matter and enabling the debate to take place and more information to be given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

Orders of the Day — GHANA (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH TEACHERS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for matters arising out of the recommendations of the Commonwealth Education Conference. it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments for, or in connection with, the provision of teachers for the Commonwealth or the fostering of Commonwealth co-operation in educational matters, being such sums as together with the sums so provided under the Commonwealth Scholarships Act, 1959, do not in the aggregate exceed six million pounds or such greater amount as may be provided by Orders in Council coming into force not earlier than the first day of April, nineteen hundred and sixty-five.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH TEACHERS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(PROVISION OF TEACHERS FOR, AND FOR FURTHER EDUCATIONAL CO-OPERATION BETWEEN, COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: Since we debated the Bill on Second Reading, and gave it a welcome from both sides, a criticism has been made of part of its provisions in a very authoritative journal, namely, The Times Educational Supplement. We on this side feel that we ought not to part with the Bill before giving the Minister of State an opportunity to reply to this criticism and perhaps remove any misgivings that it may have caused in our minds.
I have already drawn the hon. Gentleman's attention to what The Times Educational Supplement had to say. It referred, in part, to the matters contained in Clause 1 (1, a), but the criticism there was not of major importance. I am more concerned with the criticism it made of what is provided for in Clause 1 (1, b), in which we are asked to give power to the Secretary of State
for encouraging persons from the United Kingdom to become temporarily employed in
Commonwealth countries as teachers. We authorise the Minister to make payments
for facilitating the return to and resettlement in the United Kingdom of persons so employed.
Wide powers are given to the Minister, as we noted when we debated this on Second Reading. No one has any objection whatsoever to them. We all thought that it must be a very good thing to encourage additional teachers to go into Commonwealth countries and, for that purpose, to give them extra allowances and to provide, perhaps, for the fares not only of themselves but also of their families, if they undertook this service abroad.

Now, however, The Times Educational Supplement suggests that there may be a snag here which we did not perceive when we dealt with the Bill on Second Reading.

The Times Educational Supplement says:
No one would disagree with the aims of the recruitment scheme. The trouble about it is that it will be so difficult to work satisfactorily in practice. It will create—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Alport.]

Bill again considered in Committee.

Mr. Marquand: As I was saying, the criticism is that this provision of extra allowances and greater facilities than now exist in order to attract 400 teachers to go from this country to Commonwealth countries is that
It will create an aristocracy among the British teachers serving in Commonwealth countries for the financial inducements the


Government is offering will apply only to a small minority of them, 400 out of several thousand. The invidious situation where one British teacher in a large urban school in Africa is getting paid much more than another will be difficult to avoid. It can be avoided only by the most delicate diplomacy in placing the teachers, and this in itself will restrict the scope of the scheme. It is even possible that the scheme might defeat the very object it is designed to promote, and to depress rather than stimulate the recruitment of teachers. If the prospective volunteer finds that he is not selected for the privileged few he may well give up the idea of going abroad altogether.
We were rather disturbed, on Second Reading, by what we knew, and what the Minister of Education confirmed— that it had so far been very difficult to persuade teachers already teaching here to go abroad for a time. We are all extremely anxious to encourage this extra movement and provide the extra number, but I should like to give the Minister of State an opportunity to tell us how far this possibility of an adverse effect upon the majority of creating a specially privileged group might impair the possibility of recruiting, and might upset the whole position of teachers in Commonwealth countries so that, in the end, the result would not be achieved.
I have drawn the Minister's attention to the criticism, and I am sure that he will be only too ready to tell us, before we part with the Clause, what is the Government's opinion about it.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Richard Thompson): I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) for giving me notice that he proposed to raise this matter which, I admit, might at first sight appear to present a problem in regard to the smooth working of these provisions. This difficulty was realised during the planning of the scheme, and I would entirely endorse what was said in the article quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, that
It can be avoided only by the most delicate diplomacy in placing the teachers.…
There is a little more to it than just diplomacy. I do not think that payments under this scheme need necessarily give rise to disparities, and the kind of difficulties that the article apprehends.
We have to remember that the posts to be filled will all be key posts, and it is in the nature of the scheme that they will

be in places where recruitment is difficult—for instance, on account of the low salaries paid by the employer. There are not, therefore, likely to be other United Kingdom teachers receiving lower rates in the same place. It is certainly highly unlikely—and I stress this—that there would ever be two teachers in the same school where one received the special allowances while the other was on a local rate of pay.
That seems to me to be the practical answer to the doubt expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. In any case, if we take this matter a little wider than that, we have a problem here. We have, as we all know, a shortage of teachers in certain key posts and we have the inescapable duty to do something about it. In trying to redress that disparity, the financial inducements can hardly be ruled out. That is what we are taking power to give and I believe that, in practice, for the reasons I have given, we shall find that it will work out all right and will not give rise to the difficulties to which the right hon. Gentleman, quite properly, drew attention.

Mrs. Eirene White: I do not want to detain the Committee, but I think that we should have a little more explanation than that given by the Minister in fairness to those teachers and staff of training colleges and similar establishments who are already in post. The only reference to them that I have been able to find in the speeches made from the Front Bench opposite during the Second Reading debate was that by the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations, in which he referred to their being eligible for fares to return home should they be short-listed for a post towards the end of their service.
This in itself is a very valuable concession which, I am sure, will be very much appreciated. I think, however, that we should look a little more seriously at the position of some of the people already in posts who might wish perhaps to return, not necessarily to the same posts, but to other posts in the same territory for another tour, or, if on contract, to renew their contracts. It is still not quite clear, from what we have been told, whether these people will be considered at the end of an existing tour, or contract for inclusion in this key post scheme.
We have had some very unhappy experiences in the matter of overseas service in general. We have had experience of West African lists A and B, and so on. It is most important that people who have already volunteered without the extra inducement to go overseas should have no feeling at all that they are likely to be unjustly done by. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) has raised this matter tonight, so that there should be no doubt in the minds of those already there and who have volunteered to go without extra inducement that they should be eligible, if circumstances seem suitable, for consideration in their next tour for inclusion in the special list.
The Minister cannot possibly say that there would be no circumstances in which one would not find side by side two persons, one of whom is already there on the old scale and the other who might go out. After all, there is a limit to what diplomacy can do, and to say that this is for key posts only is also a little confusing.
If we take countries like Nyasaland, or Tanganyika, there is an overall shortage of secondary school teachers, quite apart from people in training colleges or other posts that might be specially designated under this scheme, and I can fully envisage a situation in which we might get one teacher on one scale and another on another in some of these establishments. We certainly would not wish to keep out extra necessary staff because there might be difficulties of this kind. That is why I think that a clearer explanation should be given.
There is another point. In his opening speech on Second Reading the Minister gave a rough estimate of what the outward scheme, as we might call it, those going overseas from this country, might cost. He said:
We estimate that the cost of this section of the scheme will build up to about£700,000 a year by the end of the five-year period".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1960; Vol. 623, c. 1143.]
The end of the five-year period, of course, means 1965. He told us that it would cover about 400 teachers in schools and universities in the Commonwealth, in addition to those proceeding overseas in the normal way.
Clearly, two categories are envisaged for the future. I very much hope that we shall achieve the 400, but let us suppose for the sake of argument that we do not. Is there anything in the Government's mind to prevent some of this money being used for people who are already in post, if that should prove necessary? Let us suppose that there is some surplus on this calculation, for one reason or another. We should know whether the Government have thought the matter through carefully.
I should not be quite so insistent about it had we not had a singularly unhappy experience in another respect, as anyone who reads the book about service in these territories by a former right hon. Member of the House, Mr. Kenneth Younger, will appreciate. We do not want to repeat the same kind of mistakes in a slightly different context in this new educational endeavour which, in principle, of course, we entirely support.
I cannot help thinking that there is as much to be said for an overseas education service as there is for an overseas service in general. Perhaps it would be out of order to discuss that, although I am not altogether sure that it would be. A good many of the difficulties to which The Times Educational Supplement referred would be very much more easily dealt with if we had an overseas educational service, with secondment of people to different posts where they were needed throughout the Commonwealth. That would be a constructive way of dealing with the matter, and I wish that the committee which studied this matter before the Bill was introduced had been a little more insistent on that point. However, we cannot alter the Bill. I am not quite sure that something along the lines I have in mind would not be possible under its provisions, and perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he thinks that an overseas education service could be brought within Clause 1. I see nothing in the Clause which would necessarily prevent it.
An overseas education service might be a better way of dealing with the anomalies which I am quite certain will arise under the scheme if it goes through as at present envisaged. Such anomalies will be inevitable, I think. I admit that we should have been a little more alert


on Second Reading to point this out. It seems inevitable from what the Minister said that two categories, a class A and a class B, are envisaged and this is bound to lead to jealousies. We were amply justified in raising the matter, and we hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government really thoroughly thought the scheme out before putting down the Clause.

Mr. Ede: I support what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) and my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). The Minister treated the matter far too lightly. After forty-six years' experience in negotiating teachers' salaries, I am quite certain that, if it is possible for an anomaly to arise, it will arise. The amount of feeling which an anomaly creates is really astonishing, and the worst of it is that the fewer are the anomalies the more is the ill-feeling created.
I hope that it will be understood that it will be possible for people already in post to come into this scheme. It is almost like the parable of the labourers in the vineyard in reverse. I have never been able to convince myself of the justice of the treatment meted out in the parable. I am sure that if it is applied in reverse it will be even more difficult to justify.
I urge the hon. Member to listen to what my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have said. Once this kind of thing gets off to a bad start, or an anomaly is created, it is astonishing how difficult it is to remedy and, what is more, in the end how expensive it is to remedy.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. R. Thompson: Perhaps I could reply briefly to what the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said. She was concerned with the case of a teacher already in a post on the ordinary local scales and expressed concern about the impact that an additional teacher in the same school who was coming out on the assisted arrangement might have on that person. I did not say that it was impossible that this would ever happen. I said that, the distribution of teachers in key posts being what it is, it was unlikely.
The real safeguard, I think, is this. At the end of a contract, those returning will be eligible for future re-employment under the scheme. I think that that was the point about which the hon. Lady was particularly anxious. After all, this is a scheme to get additional teachers into places where they are sorely needed. I do not think that, in practice, we shall find, given the good will which has been already exhibited, it will be impossible before long to recruit up to the 400 we contemplate getting under this scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (MINICOY LIGHTHOUSE) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — HUMAN RIGHTS (EUROPEAN CONVENTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sharpies.]

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I wish to call attention to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to which Her Majesty's Government are a signatory and which they have ratified, and which came into force in 1953. Fourteen of the fifteen States of the Council of Europe have ratified the Convention, the Court of Human Rights has been established and is hearing its first case, and, therefore, what may have, at one time, seemed a pious if ringing statement of platitudes has become and will continue to be a matter also of practical importance.
This Convention has been applied not only to the Metropolitan countries, but also to most overseas territories associated with the signatory nations. It may well be thought that this extension to the overseas territories was injudicious in the first place, because it is certainly for argument whether the basic personal freedoms and political rights in an emerging territory have the same characteristics as those rights in an ancient and settled community. In a primitive territory subject to the alarums and excursions of such a condition, the value of peace and order may well have to be put higher in the scale of values than is necessary elsewhere. However that may be, the Convention has been extended to overseas territories.
The acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Commission of Human Rights is obligatory upon States, but acceptance by the signatories of the right of individual petition is optional. Nevertheless, nine of the 14 signatory States have accepted it and one more is in process of doing so. The exceptions are Italy, Greece, Turkey and ourselves. Just as the acceptance of the right of individual petition might be thought inappropriate to overseas territories, so also that right may be thought unnecessary for ourselves here at home, where our liberties are buttressed by long habit and by our common law.
I am aware that Her Majesty's Government have several times said that they

are unwilling to accept this right. I can understand why they should so refuse. One reason I have given myself, namely, that for some territories in some stages of their development, so refined a definition of liberties is hardly appropriate.
There is a story which is well known to lawyers and so well known to you, Mr. Speaker, that I apologise for telling it again, but my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who was educated at Harrow, may not have the advantage of knowing it quite so well. It is the story about a former Member of this House who was pleading in an Irish court. The judge said to him, "But, Mr. Healy, has your client never heard of the maxim 'Sic utere tuo, at alienum non laedas'?" Mr. Healy replied, "Your honour, in the mountain village from which my client comes, seldom a day passes when that maxim is not one of the main topics of conversation."
Another reason, perhaps, is that Her Majesty's Government fear that a flood of fatuous or insincere applications would roll in upon them, causing them extra work and adverse publicity. Why, so to speak, put ourselves in the dock to be mocked at by sinners greater than ourselves who are not willing themselves to run the gauntlet of criticism?
I am, however, able to inform my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary that of the nearly 600 cases which the Human Rights Commission of the Council of Europe has so far received, in only 14 cases has the Commission had to trouble the Government complained of by asking them for comments on the admissibility of the case concerned. It has been able to reject the remainder without reference to that Government. Three cases only have been declared admissible and in only two cases has the matter been referred to the Court by the Commission, the States concerned having ratified the Convention.
Another reason why Her Majesty's Government might look askance at the right of individual petition is the fear lest it should be necessary constantly to derogate from the Convention in respect of the right when disturbed conditions arise in any Colony. But would the necessity for derogation be so embarrassing? As it is, Her Majesty's Government, of either political complexion, have derogated in respect of Article 5 of the Convention on ten occasions without, as far


as I am aware, further exacerbating the situation. It is not the legal steps taken, but the fact that the disturbances exist, which attracts attention and requires political solution.
I do not under-estimate the special legal difficulties which our history and our Constitution provide for us in allowing that the Crown should be sued by a national of this country at the behest of a foreign country. I can, however, think of one or two reasons why Her Majesty's Government should now consider whether they should adhere to the right of individual petition.
In the first place, it goes without saying that Her Majesty's Government not only accept but revere the principles of the Convention, which, after all, only codify the fundamental freedoms which we have secured for ourselves and which now we pass on to those people for whose destiny we have some measure of responsibility. To reject for others what we value for ourselves can, obviously, give rise to misunderstanding.
The Government have made more than clear their regard for this Convention. It was as a result of the Government's recommendations that most of the provisions of the Convention have been included in the text of the constitution of Nigeria. These clauses have also been written into the draft constitution for Cyprus. No doubt as more and more territories not homogeneous in race and language emerge as independent States, these clauses will be included in their constitutions as well. States outside those for which my hon. Friend has any responsibility have shown an equal interest in this codification of human rights. The proposed constitution for the Belgian Congo and probably that of Somaliland will embody the relevant clauses of the Convention, as also will the proposed constitution for the Organisation of American States which was set on foot in August last year at Santiago de Chile.
My hon. Friend may think, therefore, that the application of this Convention to British territories now may accustom them to the exercise of these provisions and help actually to secure peaceful and orderly progress. There is also a more immediate reason why the Government may wish to look at this matter again.
It will not, of course, be unknown to my hon. Friend that Dr. Hastings Banda not long ago made application to the Icelandic Government that they should bring a case against Her Majesty's Government concerning his imprisonment. There is no shadow of doubt that if any ratifying Government of the Convention wishes to bring a case against some other signatory Government for violation of the Convention in respect of any individual and in any territory to which it applies, they can do so. We have already had a case in point, when we were arraigned by Greece in respect of Cyprus.
This possibility, namely, that Governments who are completely unconcerned in a cause can bring suit against another Government on behalf of an individual who is not even their own national, is a new fact. Neither under international law nor under any other international convention known to me is it possible. The International Court of Justice at the Hague always insists that a nation which brings a suit must have locus standi, and that locus standi is given by the nationality of the individual concerned.
No doubt, friendly Governments will not easily lend themselves to frivolous complaints by individuals against other friendly Governments, but circumstances and friendships change and cool, and if a Government of a hostile character were elected in any signatory State they might cause far more trouble by bringing suits against Her Majesty's Government than any number of individual suits, which would in any case nearly all be stopped in limine by the screening which every application receives from the Commission. If that right of individual petition existed intervention by Governments would be far less likely.
There is another reason why the recognition of the right of the individual may be helpful in this case to relations between signatories. Not only is it true that ill-disposed Governments may at the moment bring suits against us. It is also true that unfair conditions and wrongs in a signatory State are not righted because friendly Governments hesitate to bring cases against other friendly Governments in order not to vex them, but if individuals had the


right to bring cases there would be no reason for such individuals to tempt unfriendly Governments to litigation, nor any reason either for friendly Governments to be driven to mutually wounding accusations.
If the Government have misgivings about this, has consideration been given to the adoption of a Convention for the protection of human rights for the Commonwealth? The common law of England has been one and perhaps the greatest of the gifts which we have made to the Commonwealth, but now that the unifying influence of the Privy Council's jurisdiction has almost disappeared the time has come when the diverse influence of differing practice and circumstances in different parts of the Commonwealth will doubtless whittle away the common factor.
The acceptance of this Convention and the establishment of a court for its application may be of great value to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is founded on the principles of this Convention, and its application could in no way imply inferiority of the younger States to the older, and adherence to it would be a matter of pride and not of humiliation. As to whether it is time for the United Kingdom to propose such a Convention and such a court in relation to the Commonwealth, there clearly may be more than one opinion, and it takes me far wide of the subject upon which I wish to talk tonight.
I recognise that there is a great deal to be said on either side of this proposition It may be that the price which we have to pay for this form of international co-operation is too high, but I think that we should realise that in every form of international co-operation, every form of treaty into which we enter, there is a price which must be paid.
If we are to go into N.A.T.O., we forgo some of our independence in military planning; if we take part in Euratom, or the organisation for nuclear research in Europe, we have to give away secrets which cost us many millions of£s to assemble and know about; and if we join economically in the organisation of Europe. we have to forgo some of our own control and independence over our own economic policies in this country.
Without pressing the matter hard in any way, I think that it is worth while

for us to consider whether we are prepared to pay this price, and I should like to hear from the Joint Under-Secretary what the price may be and whether he thinks it worth while our going into this Convention, or whether reasons still incline the Government to be against it. I ask whether the Government think that the situation has changed to any extent, in the light of the considerations which I have been able to advance, and whether they now contemplate adhering to the right of individual application to the Court of Human Rights.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: I support the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). In view of the situation in various parts of the world and the Commonwealth the Government should now be in a position to reconsider their attitude towards human rights.
Clearly, it was unsatisfactory that Greece had to bring a case against us over the Cypriot people. I would have thought that, after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, the time had come, even if the Government could not agree to the universal application of these rights, for them to apply them within the Commonwealth for a start.
Almost all the human rights which we now enjoy began in this country—looking back to the Bill of Rights and other reforms which we have had. I very much hope that what my hon. Friend has said will be received sympathetically by the Government and that we will not hear that this great country cannot subscribe to the Convention.

10.32 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Allan): I know the interest which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) takes in these matters and I am grateful for the chance I have had of discussing his views with him. Although I shall not be able to accept all his contentions, he argued clearly and with understanding of the problems involved. I was also interested by and impressed with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates).
Before I go into details of the arguments, I would like to take up this question of price, the price we have to pay


to be associated with the kind of European development of which this Convention is a part. First, my hon. Friend has shown that he appreciates the importance which successive Governments have attached to the Convention and I shall not reiterate the conviction of the present Government that the Convention itself must be upheld in all its provisions.
We have made that perfectly clear by applying it not only to this country, but to 42 of our dependent territories. That compares favourably with the actions of the other European members of the Council of Europe who have overseas territories. For instance, as I know my hon. Friend realises, France has not ratified the Convention at all and Belgium has not extended it to the Congo. Apart from our extension, the Convention has so far operated almost entirely in Europe, the region for which it was, after all, primarily designed.
We have accepted a considerable price. We have accepted the obligations laid down in the Convention to guarantee 16 rights and freedoms, including the rights to life, liberty and fair trial. We have undertaken to see that our laws and practices, and those of our territories to which the Convention has been extended, are in conformity with it. We have also agreed that we may be called upon to answer charges made by other parties to the Convention about alleged infringements of the Convention, whether in the United Kingdom or in the territories to which the Convention has been applied.
These charges would, of course, be heard by the Commission. If the Commission fails to settle a case, which is its first duty, and refers it to the Committee of Ministers, we have agreed to accept the decision of a two-thirds majority of that Committee as to whether an infringement has taken place. Further, we have agreed to take any measures necessary to meet the decision of the Committee. Those are very considerable obligations which we have undertaken, and undertaken not only for ourselves but for the dependent territories to which we have extended the Convention.
In terms of the price of which my hon. Friend spoke, I think that it is a fair price to have paid, but he argued

that we should go one step further. He very fairly pointed out some of the reasons why Governments in this country have decided not to opt for the right of individual petition provided under Article XXV. He stressed the different states of development in territories outside Europe. That is exactly the point. It is the very reason why this clause was made optional. I must stress that the optional nature of this clause is part of the Convention itself, and the fact that it is so has made it easier for countries to ratify the Convention and to extend it to their dependent territories outside Europe. In fact, were the clause not optional there might not have been anything like the ratification which there has been or the extensions to dependent territories.
My hon. Friend also alluded to some of the practical political considerations which have to be taken into account when looking at the territories outside Europe. Apart from these, to which I will return in a moment, the Government's view has always been that, inside or outside Europe, States, not individuals, are the proper subjects of international law. This Convention, entered into by the member States of the Council of Europe, binds them to ensure that their laws and practices are in conformity with it. It is the States, not the individuals, who are parties to the Convention and who are bound one to another. We believe that it is first and foremost a matter for the State concerned to ensure that its internal legislation is in conformity with the Convention.
My hon. Friend pointed out that allegations of infringements of the Convention made by one State against another may on occasion lead to friction between member countries. He instanced the case of Dr. Hastings Banda in this connection. He was denied the right of individual petition and he sought to get another Government to take up his case. That, of course, is a risk which we run. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Icelandic Government did not take up Dr. Banda's case. But whether we accept Article XXV or not, this risk is still there.
Our traditional view that the State and not the individual is the proper subject of international law is one reason why we have refused to make the


optional declaration regarding the right of individual petition. As I said, there are more practical reasons for our reluctance to do so. My hon. Friend pointed out that an extraordinarily high proportion of applications brought to the Commission are rejected. As he said, of the individual petitions so far presented only three have been declared admissible, and it is only occasionally that the Government concerned have been approached by the Commission at all.
I should like to make clear straight away that Her Majesty's Government have no objection to any extra work which might be involved if we believed that this would genuinely facilitate the maintenance of human rights. My hon. Friend hinted that to allow anyone and everyone to petition the Commission of Human Rights might create more problems than it solved. I agree for a number of reasons. First, while the fact of a petition is bound to become public knowledge, the Commission's report is secret.
This means that whether a petition were dismissed or not, the fact that it was laid could always be used for propaganda purposes against the Government challenged. Because the Commission's report is secret, I cannot discuss it in relation to the subjects raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin. The point is that the petition was used against this country unfairly for propaganda purposes.
My second point is one that was mentioned by my hon. Friend, that conditions in many Colonial Territories are different from those in Europe. Among emerging communities political agitators thrive and one may well imagine the use which political agitators would make of the right of individual petition. For every one grievance which had some substance there would be a hundred put up for political purposes only.
My hon. Friend mentioned the question of a Convention on human rights for the Commonwealth. This is an attractive idea which has been before us for many years in one guise or another. I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to my noble Friend. But I feel it would be unfair not to take the opportunity of pointing out that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not look very favourably on the idea when it was raised through Questions in the House last month.
I may not have been able to give my hon. Friend the kind of positive reply for which I know he was hoping. On the other hand, I am most grateful to him for raising this matter, because it gives me the opportunity of reaffirming something I said a year ago in a similar debate, which is our decision that we shall support this Convention to the best of our ability.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.